6.0077 Rs: On "Discovery" and "the Americas" (8/165)

Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Mon, 15 Jun 1992 21:20:27 EDT

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 6, No. 0077. Monday, 15 Jun 1992.


(1) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 16:15:00 -0400 (13 lines)
From: A BROOK <A_BROOK@carleton.ca>
Subject: 'Discovery' of the Americas

(2) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 17:02:55 EDT (29 lines)
From: David E. Latane <dlatane@hibbs.vcu.edu>
Subject: Re: 6.0074 R: Who 'Discovered' the Americas'

(3) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 92 23:33:06 BST (22 lines)
From: Christopher Currie <c.currie@clus1.ulcc.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: 6.0074 R: Who 'Discovered' the Americas'

(4) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 10:00 -0300 (19 lines)
From: TETRO@AC.DAL.CA
Subject: Re: 6.0074 R: Who 'Discovered' the Americas'

(5) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 09:46:46 EDT (16 lines)
From: Glenn Everett <IVAA@UTMARTN.BITNET>
Subject: 6.0074 R: Who 'Discovered' the Americas'

(6) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 07:56:40 (19 lines)
From: koontz@alpha (John E. Koontz)
Subject: Re: 6.0074 R: Who 'Discovered' the Americas'

(7) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 18:40 BST (13 lines)
From: PARKINSON@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Subject: RE: 6.0074 R: Who 'Discovered' the Americas'

(8) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 8:46 pm EDT (34 lines)
From: "Robert C. Schweik Dr" <SCHWEIK@FREDONIA.BITNET>
Subject: Who 'Discovered' the Americas

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 16:15:00 -0400
From: A BROOK <A_BROOK@carleton.ca>
Subject: 'Discovery' of the Americas

'There is no proof ... that any ... people came to the Americas before
Columbus ...', says Marc Eisinger.

He forgets Canada. On the northern tip of Newfoundland, at Aise aux Meadows
(I think that's the spelling, but I am working from memory), remains of
Norse buildings have been found, as well as many other artefacts, if memory
serves.

A_Brook@Carleton.CA (Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada K1S 5B6
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------40----
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 17:02:55 EDT
From: David E. Latane <dlatane@hibbs.vcu.edu>
Subject: Re: 6.0074 R: Who 'Discovered' the Americas'

>Mark Eisinger writes
>
> - There is NO proof whatsoever that any European/African/Asiatic
> people came to the Americas before Columbus in historic times.
>
> - If any did, there's no trace. So who cares if it happened or not ?
>
>I'm sure a thousand cursors will leap from their screens to defend the
honor (as well as historicity) of the Vikings who voyaged to wineland,
who left written chronicles, and (if I remember correctly) indisputable,
though not particularly impressive, archaeological evidence as well. I'm
eagerly awaiting the learned rebuttals of this first statement. The
second statement centers on the word "trace"--if these peoples did come
to America , and if "proof" is convincing enough, then the change in the
perception of the people (and their history) who made the audacious voyage to
North America leaves a mark in the present.

In the past, we might remember that it was the supposed discovery of
America by Prince Madoc of Wales that gave Queen Elizabeth a legal basis
for disputing Spanish claims to North America and settling colonies
here. Even things for which there is NO PROOF can leave important
historical legacies.
David Latane
dlatane@hibbs.vcu.edu

(3) --------------------------------------------------------------32----
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 92 23:33:06 BST
From: Christopher Currie <c.currie@clus1.ulcc.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: 6.0074 R: Who 'Discovered' the Americas'

> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 6, No. 0074. Saturday, 13 Jun 1992.
>
> Date: 11 June 92, 10:32:39 SET
> From: Marc Eisinger +33 (1) 49 05 72 27 <EISINGER@FRIBM11>
> Subject: Discovery of the Americas

>
> Once again the same song. My point is :
>
> - There is NO proof whatsoever that any European/African/Asiatic
> people came to the Americas before Columbus in historic times.
>
How about the excavated Viking settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows (Newf.)?

Christopher Currie



(4) --------------------------------------------------------------22----
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 10:00 -0300
From: TETRO@AC.DAL.CA
Subject: Re: 6.0074 R: Who 'Discovered' the Americas'

Marc Eisinger, commenting on The Discovery of the Americas, says that putative
pre-columbian voyagers to the new world "left no trace". Were he to visit the
Canadian province of Newfoundland, he could see for himself the remains of an
elaborate Viking settlement (dating back to 1000 AD) at L'Anse aux Meadows.
It has been declared a World Historic Site, and so is no secret.
Nor were Norsemen the only pre-columbians. Fishermen from the West of
England, probably sailing out of Bristol, braved the North Atlantic to fish
off the Grand Banks, and knew of the existence of a land-mass to the West.
They kept their knowledge to themselves to protect their commercial interests,
but John Cabot, sailing about 5 years after Columbus, used their information
to reach our shores.
Columbus didn't exist in a vacuum; his voyage was the culmiantion of a
historical process..
Ronald Tetreault, Dept. of English, Dalhousie Univ.
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
(5) --------------------------------------------------------------24----
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 09:46:46 EDT
From: Glenn Everett <IVAA@UTMARTN.BITNET>
Subject: 6.0074 R: Who 'Discovered' the Americas'

I thought I remembered it being pretty well established that Norsemen
under Leif the Lucky reached Vinland. Wasn't there some archeological
finding in the last 25 years that verified this long-held tradition,
passed down in saga and story for centuries? I can't remember where
the settlement was thought to be--so many sites have been discredited
--but I think I saw something on PBS in the last few years. Can
anyone else shed more light?

Glenn Everett
University of Tennessee at Martin
IVAA@UTMARTN.BITNET

(6) --------------------------------------------------------------28----
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 07:56:40
From: koontz@alpha (John E. Koontz)
Subject: Re: 6.0074 R: Who 'Discovered' the Americas'

Marc Eisinger, re. Martin Raish, says:

> Once again the same song. My point is :
>
> - There is NO proof whatsoever that any European/African/Asiatic
> people came to the Americas before Columbus in historic times.
>
> - If any did, there's no trace. So who cares if it happened or not ?

There is archaeological evidence of Norse activity along the Canadian
Atlantic coast. It has even been reported in National Geographic, as I
recall. Not that this activity was on the same scale as post-Columbian
activity later.


(7) --------------------------------------------------------------20----
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 18:40 BST
From: PARKINSON@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Subject: RE: 6.0074 R: Who 'Discovered' the Americas'

Marc Eisinger's song seems very familiar too, and was sung by those
wishing to pour scorn on the idea that the Portuguese discovered Australia
a few centuries before Captain Cook...
Even if there is no conclusive documentary evidence, the issue of who
manages to travel where would seem to be one about which we are entitled
to care a lot!
Stephen Parkinson,
Centre for the Study of the Portuguese Discoveries
Linacre College, Oxford
(8) --------------------------------------------------------------60----
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 8:46 pm EDT (Tue, 16 Jun 92 00:46:33 UT)
From: "Robert C. Schweik Dr" <SCHWEIK@FREDONIA.BITNET>
Subject: Who 'Discovered' the Americas

>From <SCHWEIK@FREDONIA>

Questions about who discovered America depend on the
user's definition of the word DISCOVER. But, whether the
word is taken to mean "to obtain knowledge of" or "to be the
first to find," what is common to the meaning of this word
both in English and in related Indo-European languages is
that the "finding" (whether first or later) is related to the
social group whose representative the "finder" is.

Hence, objections that, say, Columbus didn't discover the
new world because some other peoples were already living
there may have some political purpose--e.g., to emphasize
were people and important--or even to
an individual--as when we say that a child "discovers" something
adults all know.

Hence, arguments about whether or not Columbus discovered"
America really have nothing to do with what happened. Everyone
agrees he did indeed come and that indeed there were indigenous
peoples already here. The quibble, instead, is intended, for
political reasons, to change the common meaning of the word
"discover" to mean "absolutely first finder" rather than what
is now the case "first finder relative to the social group that
the finder belongs to." The purpose in doing this is, of course,
to enhance the pride of indigenous people for having been the
first to "discover" the continent.

How the word DISCOVER is used may, possibly, enhance the self-
esteem of American aborigines--and, if it indeed does that,
I heartily encourage that the word be be used in the sense
which is for their self esteem enhancing.

But far more important, I think, is not the VERBAL but the
REAL status of indigenous peoples. The lesson of "BLACKS"--
e.g. NEGROES, AFRO-AMERICANS, PEOPLE OF COLOR, etc.--should
testify to the fact that changes in name do not necessarily
(or even probably) result in changes in status.

I don't mean to impy that there have not been some very real
changes in the social condition of minority groups in America.
It would be foolish to deny that there have not been. But name
changes, so far as I have been able to tell, have had little effect
on what I deem to be more important changes--i.e. in job, education,
housing, and other opportunities.

I'd appreciate your views--pro or con.

ROBERT SCHWEIK
<SCHWEIK@FREDONIA>