From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Columbus should not be mentioned as "discovering" America; it was already inhabited by the indigenous peoples, thus they discovered it. (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Columbus's "discovery" of the New World has been standard phrasing, however Eurocentric. We could say Columbus's voyages or expeditions. Changing it to something like "rediscovery" seems clumsy to me, as would other choices, such as "found", etc., which also don't seem helpful. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
How about "arrived" or "landed in"? (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Currently, the relevant text reads Next, Christopher Columbus discovered the New World in 1492. I resist changing it from standard phrasing, but I can see the point of its seeming insensitive to some. I think "first arrived in" or "first explored" for "discovered" are okay. Then there's the fact that "New World" itself is Eurocentric. That could be changed to, say, "the Americas" without much injury, I think. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't really see why it is necessary to mention him here at all - in the long term the switch of trade to Atlantic routes was bad for Venice, but that point isn't really made. Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, come to think of it, that sentence does stand out for its irrelevance, where, upon further investigation, it seems that Spanish exploration was a reaction to Portuguese trading monopolies along the African, Indian, Indonesian, etc. coasts, not Venice's monopoly of the Mediterranean. And the Age of Discovery, in general, seems dependent on technological achievements as much as any concerted attempt to undermine Venetian trading dominance. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
"First arrived in" also has problems ;-) I've been bold and tried sidestepping. Sparafucil (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)