Talk:Christopher Columbus

Guild homeHow to copy editTemplatesBarnstarsParticipantsCoordinators

RequestsDrivesBlitzesMailing listNewsletters

Talk:Christopher Columbus/Top

Talk:Christopher Columbus/Left panel

Talk:Christopher Columbus/Right panel

More Lies - the True Arms of Colón

Slowly the truth is coming to light. The Genoese wool weaver is washed up and shrinking into oblivion. The history of a genoese woolweaver was never proven and based on false testimony, lively imagination and pig-headed stuborness of historians. First Manuel Rosa proved the Testament was falsified to say "being I born in Genoa" [1]. Then he proved that Morison was an inventor showing how the facts never existed to support the assumptions in Admiral of the Ocean Sea. Next he proved that Filipa Moniz was a "dona Comendadeira" member of the Portuguese Military Order of Santiago and not being able to marry without permission from the Master who was at the time King John II of Portugal. Now, are you ready fot this?... it is now proven that the arms long assumed to have been those of the Admiral are wrong. Manuel Rosa had called it already last year and he was again proven right by the documents. The Royal Grant of Arms signed by the Catholic Kings proves all historians up to now were wrong about the true arms. Therefore the arms were never stolen from the genoese woolweaver's guild as Morison invented. For the real true arms see Revista de la Federación Española de Genealogia y Heráldica, Cuadernos de Ayala 26 - Abril 2006. "El escudo de armas de Cristóbal Colón. Estudio de un acrecentamiento heráldico", p.9-25. by Dr. D. Félix MARTÍNEZ LLORENTE. [2] One by one the book O Mistério Colombo Revelado has hit the bull's eye and proven the history of a genoese Colombo was false. 02:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Carlos Mateus

REPLY by Francesco Fucilla

Dear Sir !! The story at present presented by WIKIPEDIA it is to say the least FALSE !!!

The Article written on Christopher Colombo ( NOTE THE ARTICLE FROM WIKIPEDIA BELOW ) was totally influenced .............

(and has its origins in a Short documentary film shown on the Discovery Channel )

by an ELITE of " IMBECILLES" responsible for the making of it !!!

Their knowledge on Human Anthropology, Ethnicity, Biology

or Mitochondrial DNA analysis........ and more so the history of European

Mongrelism its a mockery to Human intellectual progress !!!

REMARKABLE !!!

I will now give you tangible proofs to my "slanderous" BUT TRUE

STATEMENT OF FACTS !!! afterall " he who comes to equity must do so with clean hands ) hence we can all SLANDER a little !!! Anyway............. aside from the facts that if we were to trace anyone family tree we would get to an AMOEBA in equatorial Africa !!!

It can be shown that in the last 12.000 years

There is no such a thing as race or Sub race in Continental Europe

but the mixture and remixtere of tribes from north africa to middle east humanoids from Europe,

migrating people have been blending GAMETES among each others since time began

reaching the peak of blending GENOTYPES during the roman empire!!! ............. MORE SO................................

Roman domination upon what we now call Western Europe, contaminated

unprecidently all of the western known world. today

in Europe that one cannot talk about Stock but differential stereotypes !!

IN the said reality........WHAT NATIONALITY CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO ANY OF US !!?? Contrary to the ignorant porkies offered in the so called Colombo Wikipedia story it can be shown and proven that The Land we call Italy....... has had Red, Blond, Black, Brown etc etc hair type of people, throughout its history.

Scleroproteins variety can be shown to be highly differentiated

all over the European mass-Land......with mongrel types roaming

around in great varieties !!!

There is no political boundaries to define a single European

when it come to "BIOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS" or Taxonomical nomenclature etc etc !!

ALL FACTS ( Check them out ) !!!!!

when we say an ENGLISH MAN or a Spaniard we identify that with certain

cultural patterned acquired in recent times by people that have

migrated over thousands of years from geographical areas.

for example the Mongrel variety

found in England today..!!!......ie.......the blend of Africans, Spaniards, Italians, Cheks, Dutch, Germans etc etc.... is well defined as an Englishman not an Englishman whose fathers were saxons, romans, africans, etc etc LET ME NOT STATE THAT THEM SAXONS ROMANS AND AFRICANS ETC ETC.......... ..... WERE THEMSELVES OF MONGREL ORIGINS !!!

you may say......." WHAT IS THEN AN Italian, or a Spanish

or any other European " for that matter !!??

REPLY

These are people with political and cultural denominations

resulted from random historical and cultural blending of migrated people !!

NOW FOR THE TRUTH........inversely proportional to your so called published history....

HERE IT GOES !!!!!!!!!!!!

The Idea of demising the IDEA of Italian People derives from

a illiterate levels of JELOUSY due to the History

of the Land that has been regarded as the cradle of human intellectual achievements

and that the same stands as 60+% contributor to humanity cultural patrimony

The Italian Land that was crucial to the development of Western Cultural and intellectual expansion !!! and stands at the very centre of western european cultural life.......that....

the guy that wrote the article.... has no basic understanding of human history, Biology, Anthropology,

and all other sciences that are a prerequisite to anyone to wright articles that are political in

nature, and littered with highly complicated intellectual aspects that require psychological, historical, Biological, and at least dialectical mastering of many sciences in order to put the said articles together  !!! For example

From the Article written I could start a satire that would

show beyond doubts that the psychological makeup of the article

can be allotted to a guy suffering of Inferiority complex, and Ethnical

misunderstanding leading him to a masturbation of the LOBO

in order to justify his miserable existence !!! or to someone that for unexplainable reasons does not want to say that the greatest navjgator that discovered the new world was italian !!!???

Colombo WAS ITALIAN, A GENEVOSE and WE ALL KNOW !!!!

let me go further with my stimulation of your little lobes !!

Its like me saying " Isaac Newton family can be traced to central France when

the French took control of part of England, but then he his also Italian Because

the French Family can trace its Origin to Tuscan, but that the said italian family

descents from Palestinian immigrands because the Roman Legionnaire fucked a local Palestinian girl

that then gave origin to this FARSE !!

Newton is Newton because he was born in what we call England !!

Cristofo Colombo and his brothers claim to be Genovese

and that they were born in Genoa and indeed it can be proven to be so.............

.......they were the children of a Woman called Fontanarossa and a man called Colombo

by way of their own disclousure to the world

.......that is not GOOD to the so called historians have place a ? mark when

addressing to the Birth place of cristoforo colombo !!

it appears that the whole of colombo brothers were insane to say that they

were genovese !!!!!!!!!!!

WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THAT !!?? WHAT POSSIBLE GAIN WOULD ANYONE GET FROM THAT !!?? ITS A FARSE !!

Now look at the mind of a genius !! I will break the psychological aspect of the evolving farse..... ........ie............ The biggest farce is the attempt to dislocate the poor

great ITALIAN from his motherland........when the ignorant

illiterate individual feeds the article with subtle innuendos

such as ......." HE WAS VERY WHITE and WITH RED HAIR

that he never went brown in the sun but only RED " !!!!

so to confuse readers at large !!!!!!

EHEHEHEH

the guy attemps to confuse the article

so that people that have no concept of what is an Italian

or a German for that matter..... may believe that he was not an Italian

because Italians are conceived by the large not well read

population........ to be dark !!!

eheheheh

The illiterate goes then further by quoting the Imbeciles

that produce the 1 hr Film on the life of C. Colombo

on Discovery channel ...........quoting DNA analyses

made on colombo !!!

EHEHEHEH

He states that he may not have been a Jew but never

saying that he was an Italian because has he

alleged colombo had red hair and pink skin !!!

eheheheheh

In order that I may give you the proof that the above interpretation its correct I CHALLENGE YOU TO LOOK on WIKIPEDIA the story of NEWTON, MAXWELL, EINSTEIN, DIRAC, AND THOUSAND OF MORE GREAT non Italian scientists AND SEE IF any of them HAVE descriptions of their " PHYSICAL APPEARANCE " !!!! eheheheh Only Colombo has a description of his physical appearance !? WHY !? I tell you why !!86.151.66.41 10:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Because what I wrote above ite TRUE !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.66.41 (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What a fucking illiterate MORON !!

I can assure that no Italian, English or any other European region could

come out with DNA results to allot an individual to one tribe or another

................but the blending of all human tribes !!

Colombo is an Italian by a demographic Political definition ONLY

as we know of NEWTON being an Englishman and Poincare

a Frenchman !!!

in such reality no one has nationality !!!!!! and takes us into an oceans

of intellectual dilemmas !!!!!

If we were to trace the evolutionary tree of each one individual European

we would Find..........data in Africa, Iraq, India, Mongolia, Tunisia, Germany

England etc etc !!!

Please do yourself a great Did

Call me to revise all of the article you publish from today !!

more so allow me to rewrite the whole of your winkipedia !!!

by the way I always write in English even to my friends and i am an italian !!

so the allegorical statement that he may not be italian because he wrote

in spanish its total crap !!!

I am an Italian Born who understand that his family

come out of Africa and that he is the result of MONGREL

genetical Derivations in time, and that before that he belonged to a family

of marsupials, and before that to a Single cell organism some where

in what we call planet earth !!!

Francesco Da Cosenza

PS:

The crap written on christopher colombus ( and many important people of this world ) ........its CRIMINAL acts to say the list....... and now you are protecting the site  !!?? eheheheheh Colombus its too important to be an Italian and his history its being sistematically CORRUPTED to confuse an highly educated mass that are now seeing the lies that goes on !! As to Colombo................. Its like me saying that Newton was Born in xxxxx a French province now known as England and that is skin was OLIVINE and that althow from DNA it appears to be non jew, from his dark skinned appearance, it was possibly a migrant from Souther Spain !!! ehehehy England was once colony of Rome the Romans and now its know as England !!! Hence Newton is a ROMAN from Souther Spain possibly "!!! EHEHEH History has shown that YOU CAN FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME........YOU CAN FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME............. .........BUT YOU CANT FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME !!! The Article on Colombo its ignorantly racial, and its disgustingly unacceptable to people at large !!! SEE THE ARTICLE BELOW

WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON COLOMBO "BELOW" Christopher Columbus From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Christopher Columbus

Portrait by Alejo Fernández, painted between 1505 and 1536. Photo by historian Manuel Rosa. Born c. 1451 Genoa, Italy Died May 20, 1506 Valladolid, Spain Occupation maritime explorer for the Crown of Castile

Christopher Columbus (Genoa?, 1451 – May 20, 1506, Valladolid, Spain) was a navigator and colonialist who is one of several historical figures credited as the first European to discover the Americas. Though likely not the first to reach the Americas from Europe, it was Columbus' voyages that lead to general European awareness of the hemisphere and the successful establishment of European cultures in the New World. It is generally believed that he was born in Genoa, although other theories and possibilities exist. The name Christopher Columbus is the Anglicization of the Latin Christophorus Columbus. Also well known are his name's rendering in modern Italian as Cristoforo Colombo and in Castilian Spanish as Cristóbal Colón.

Columbus' voyages across the Atlantic Ocean began a European effort at exploration and colonization of the Western Hemisphere. While history places great significance on his first voyage of 1492, he did not actually reach the mainland until his third voyage in 1498. Likewise, he was not the earliest European explorer to reach the Americas, as there are accounts of European transatlantic contact prior to 1492. Nevertheless, Columbus's voyage came at a critical time of growing national imperialism and economic competition between developing nation states seeking wealth from the establishment of trade routes and colonies. Therefore, the period before 1492 is known as Pre-Columbian.

The anniversary of the 1492 voyage (vd. Columbus Day) is observed throughout the Americas and in Spain. Columbus had noted that the Indian people were friendly. Controversy came later, since first person accounts depict the genocide of the indigenous people by the Spanish conquistadors.

Contents [hide] 1 Life 1.1 Nationality 1.2 Early life 1.3 Physical appearance 1.4 Language 2 Background to voyages 2.1 Navigation plans 2.2 Funding campaign 3 Voyages 3.1 First voyage 3.2 Second voyage 3.3 Third voyage 3.4 Fourth voyage 4 Governorship and arrest 5 Later life 6 Legacy 6.1 Columbus Ascendant 6.2 Modern day 7 Notes 8 References 9 See also 10 External links 10.1 IMDB

Life

Nationality Main article: Origin theories of Christopher Columbus It is most widely accepted that Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa, located in modern-day Italy.[1] Other alternatives have been proposed, but no proof has been determined. Clues to Columbus' origin such as learned languages and DNA samples have been studied, but to date, DNA tests seem to show that Columbus was probably not a Sephardic Jew (Spanish).[citation needed]

Early life According to the most widely acknowledged biographies, Columbus was born between August and October 1451 in Genoa. His father was Domenico Colombo, a middle-class wool weaver working between Genoa and Savona. His mother was Susanna Fontanarossa. Bartolomeo, Giovanni Pelligrino and Giacomo were his brothers. Bartolomeo worked in a cartography workshop in Lisbon for at least part of his adulthood.[1]

While information about Columbus' early years is scarce, he probably received an incomplete education. He spoke a Genoese dialect.[citation needed] In one of his writings, Columbus claims to have gone to the sea at the age of 10. In the early 1470s, he was in the service of René I of Anjou in a Genoese ship hired to support his unfortunate attempt to conquer the Kingdom of Naples. Later he allegedly made a trip to Chios, in the Aegean Sea. In May 1476, he took part in an armed convoy sent by Genoa to carry a valuable cargo to northern Europe.

Physical appearance

Christopher Columbus, conjectural image by Sebastiano del Piombo in the Gallery of Illustrious Men (Corridoio Vasariano), Uffizi, Florence. Although an abundance of artwork involving Christopher Columbus exists, no authentic contemporary portrait of the man has been found. In 1595 Theodore de Bry made an etching after a painting of Columbus, made in his lifetime.[2] The etching shows resemblance with the portrait of Sebastiano del Piombo, so this painting might depict Columbus with some accuracy. Over the years, artists who reconstruct his appearance have done so from written descriptions. These writings describe him as having reddish hair, which turned to white early in his life, as well as being a lighter skinned person with too much sun exposure turning his face red.

Despite the clear description of red hair or white hair, textbooks use the image on the right so often that it has become the iconic image of Columbus accepted by popular culture.

Language Although Genoese documents have been found about a weaver named Colombo, it has also been noted, in preserved documents, that Columbus also wrote in Spanish, and that he used the language, with Portuguese or Catalan phonetics, even when writing personal notes to himself, to his brother, Italian friends, and to the Bank of Genoa. His two brothers were wool weavers from Genoa and also wrote in Spanish. Genovese Italian was not a written language at that time. Columbus wrote in a Northern Italian language.

Latin, on the other hand, was the language of scholarship, and here Columbus excelled. He also kept his journal in Latin, and a "secret" journal in Greek. 86.151.66.41 10:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

AGAIN The Lies and Unfounded Assertions are Mind-boggling

Someone who knows little about the Admiral Colón has edited the article again putting down the date of birth as 1451 in Genoa. Worst of all they have invented a history of a Columbus working for some Italians being the same Admiral who discovered the New World when NOT ONE FACT supports this.

"In 1470 the Columbus Family moved to Savona, where Domenico took over a tavern. In the same year, he was in the service of René I of Anjou in a Genoese ship hired to support his unfortunate attempt to conquer the Kingdom of Naples. In 1473 he began his apprenticeship as business agent for three important families of Genoa(the ). Later he allegedly made a trip to Chios, in the Aegean Sea. In May 1476, he took part in an armed convoy sent by Genoa to carry a valuable cargo to northern Europe. He docked in Bristol, Galway, in Ireland and very likely, in 1477 he was in Iceland. In 1479 Columbus reached his brother Bartolomeo in Lisbon, keeping on trading for the Centurione family."

I challenge the editor who made thes statements to show:
- proof that Cristoforo Colombo wool-weaver from Genoa and Savona was Cristóbal Colón married to a noble woman in Portugal uncle to Counts and Marquises in Portugal and navigator, Admiral, Viceroy and Governor for Spain.
- proof that the Spanish Admiral was ever an aprentice in business with the Centurione, Di Negro and Spinola.
- proof that a wool-weaver Columbus sailed for Renè d'Anjou and proof of the date of 1470.
- proof that the Admiral ever worked for the Centurione while in Portugal.
- proof that Bartolomeo Colombo, wool-weaver from Genoa and Savona ever lived in Portugal and that the wool-weaver was a mapmaker in Lisbon.

Having not only the truth but also the lies been revealed in DNA and Forensic studies but also in the book O Mistério Colombo Revelado, Ésquilo, Lisbon 2006, I, like all seekers of the truth, require proof of such silly nonsense as has been propagated not only here in Wikipedia but in books, schools and universities worldwide. Free your mind your heart will follow Colombo.bz 13:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove the Genoa from the Born in the right hand side

Since the place of birth is not known, I suggest that this be removed from the tag. Thanks, SalvadorFernandesZarco

There is a book called A NEW THEORY CLARIFYING THE IDENTITY OF CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: A BYZANTINE PRINCE FROM CHIOS, GREECE written by Ruth G Durlacher-Wolper. I must admit it makes a convincing argument and provides substantial evidence. The author claims he was a greek-speaking noble from the island of Chios, which was at the time a part of Genova's maritime empire. Check this page: http://www.greecetravel.com/history/columbus/ Whether you believe this or not, I think that the first paragraph should be changed to reflect that fact that the birthplace and nationality of Colombus is not known and that there are several hypotheses each with its pros and cons. I think that all hypothesis should be presented, and their arguments briefly presented. What do people think about this? Schizophonix 23:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sirs !! I am shocked by the level of Ignorance displayed by the guys you

employ to write articles of history !!!

The Article written on Christopher Colombo ( NOTE THE ARTICLE FROM WIKIPEDIA BELOW ) was totally influenced .............

(and has its origins in a Short documentary film shown on the Discovery Channel )

by an ELITE of " IMBECILLES" responsible for the making of it !!!

EHEHEHEHEH

Their knowledge on Human Anthropology, Ethnicity, Biology

of Mitochondrial DNA and more so the history of European

Mongrelism its a mockery to Human intellectual progress !!!

REMARKABLE !!!

eheheheheh

I will now give you tangible proofs to my slanderous BUT TRUE

STATEMENT OF FACTS !!!

It can be shown that in the last 12.000 years

There is no such a thing as race or Sub race in Continental Europe

but the mixture of all Stock of humanoids from Europe, ..........

Africa ...........to............. Mongolia..................soon after the last fluctuation

of ice age.................the said

migrating people have been blend GAMETES among each others.....

reaching the peak of blending GENOTYPES !!!............. MORE SO................................

during the hundreds of years of Roman domination upon what we now call Western Europe, The whole of Europe were contaminated

mixed and remixed that there is no particular stock of people

in Europe that one cannot talk about Stock but differential stereotypes !!

IN the said reality........WHAT NATIONALITY CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO ANY OF US !!??

eheheheheh

The Land we call Italy....... has had Red, Blond, Black, Brown etc etc hair type of people, throughout its history.

Scleroproteins variety can be shown to be highly differentiated

all over the European mass-Land......with mongrel types roaming

around in great varieties !!!

There is no political boundaries to define a single European

when it come to "BIOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS" or Taxonomical nomenclature etc etc !!

eheheheh

ALL FACTS ( Check them out ) !!!!!

when we say an ENGLISH MAN we identify that with certain

cultural patterned acquired in recent times by people that have

migrated over thousands of years from geographical areas into England

and contributing to the Mongrel variety

found in England today..!!!......ie....... North Africans, Spaniards, Italians, Checks, Dutch, Germans etc etc....

.....BUT THAT THESE PEOPLE THEMSELVES ARE OF MONGREL ORIGINS !!!

you may say......." WHAT IS THEN AN Italian, or a Spanish

or any other European " !!??

REPLY

These are people with political and cultural denominations

resulted from random historical and cultural blending of migrated people !!

We do that in Geography when we give different names to affluent

rivers contributing to rivers ......so that we know what we are referring to

………….fresh water is fresh water as saline water its saline waters !!!!!!

eheheheh

NOW FOR THE TRUTH........inversely proportional to your so called published history....

HERE IT GOES !!!!!!!!!!!!

The Idea of demising the IDEA of Italian People derives from

a illiterate levels of JELOUSY due to the History

of the Land that has been regarded as the cradle of human intellectual achievements

and that the same stands as 60+% contributor the humanity cultural patrimony

The Italian Land that was crucial to the development of Western Cultural and intellectual expansion !!!.......that....

the guy that wrote the article.... has no basic understanding of human history, Biology, Anthropology,

and all other sciences that are a prerequisite to anyone to right something that

has basic truth, before writing such articles that are political in

nature and racial too !!!

From the Article written I could start a satire that would

show beyond doubts that the psychological makeup of the article

can be allotted to a guy suffering of Inferiority complex, and Ethnical

misunderstanding leading him to a masturbation of the LOBO

in order to justify his miserable existence !!!

Its like me saying " Isaac Newton family can be traced to central France when

the French took control of part of England, but then he his also Italian Because

the French Family can trace its Origin to Tuscan, but that the said italian family

descents from Palestinian immigrands because the Roman Legionnaire fucked a local Palestinian girl

that then gave origin to this FARSE !!

Newton is Newton because he was born in what we call England !!

Cristofo Colombo and his brothers claim to be Genovese

and that they were born in Genoa and indeed it can be proven to be so.............

.......they were the children of a Woman called Fontanarossa and a man called Colombo

by way of their own disclousure to the world

.......that is not GOOD to the so called historians have place a ? mark when

addressing to the Birth place of cristoforo colombo !!

eheheheheh

it appears that the whole of colombo brothers were insane to say that they

were genovese !!!!!!!!!!!

ITS A FARSE !!

The biggest farce is the attempt to dislocate the poor

great ITALIAN from his motherland........when the ignorant

illiterate individual feeds the article with subtle innuendos

such as ......." HE WAS VERY WHITE and WITH RED HAIR

that he never went brown in the sun but only RED " !!!!

so to confuse readers at large !!!!!!

EHEHEHEH

the guy attemps to confuse the article

so that people that have no concept of what is an Italian

or a German for that matter..... may believe that he was not an Italian

because Italians are conceived by the large not well read

population........ to be dark !!!

eheheheh

The illiterate goes then further by quoting the Imbeciles

that produce the 1 hr Film on the life of C. Colombo

on Discovery channel ...........quoting DNA analyses

made on colombo !!!

EHEHEHEH

He states that he may not have been a Jew but never

saying that he was an Italian because has he

alleged colombo had red hair and pink skin !!!

eheheheheh

What a fucking illiterate MORON !!

I can assure that no Italian, English or any other European region could

come out with DNA results to allot an individual to one tribe or another

................but the blending of all human tribes !!

Colombo is an Italian by a demographic Political definition ONLY

as we know of NEWTON being an Englishman and Poincare

a Frenchman !!!

in such reality no one has nationality !!!!!! and takes us into an oceans

of intellectual dilemmas !!!!!

If we were to trace the evolutionary tree of each one individual European

we would Find..........data in Iraq, India, Mongolia, Tunisia, Germany

England etc etc !!!

Please do yourself a great Did

Call me to revise all of the article you publish from today !!

more so allow me to rewrite the whole of your winkipedia !!!

by the way I always write in English even to my friends and i am an italian !!

so the allegorical statement that he may not be italian because he wrote

in spanish its total crap !!!

I am an Italian Born who understand that his family

come out of Africa and that he is the result of MONGEL

genetical Derivation, and that before that he belonged to a family

of marsupial, and before that to a Single cell organism some where

in what we call planet earth !!!

eheheheheh

Francesco Da Cosenza

PS:

The crap written on christopher colombus ( and many important people of this world ) ........its CRIMINAL acts to say the list....... and now you are protecting the site  !!?? eheheheheh Colombus its too important to be an Italian and his history its being sistematically CORRUPTED to confuse an highly educated mass that are now seeing the lies that goes on !! As to Colombo................. Its like me saying that Newton was Born in xxxxx a French province now known as England and that is skin was OLIVINE and that althow from DNA it appears to be non jew, from his dark skinned appearance, it was possibly a migrant from Souther Spain !!! ehehehy England was once colony of Rome the Romans and now its know as England !!! Hence Newton is a ROMAN from Souther Spain possibly "!!! EHEHEH History has shown that YOU CAN FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME........YOU CAN FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME............. .........BUT YOU CANT FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME !!! The Article on Colombo its ignorantly racial, and its disgustingly unacceptable to people at large !!! SEE THE ARTICLE BELOW

WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON COLOMBO "BELOW" Christopher Columbus From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Christopher Columbus

Portrait by Alejo Fernández, painted between 1505 and 1536. Photo by historian Manuel Rosa. Born c. 1451 Genoa, Italy Died May 20, 1506 Valladolid, Spain Occupation maritime explorer for the Crown of Castile

Christopher Columbus (Genoa?, 1451 – May 20, 1506, Valladolid, Spain) was a navigator and colonialist who is one of several historical figures credited as the first European to discover the Americas. Though likely not the first to reach the Americas from Europe, it was Columbus' voyages that lead to general European awareness of the hemisphere and the successful establishment of European cultures in the New World. It is generally believed that he was born in Genoa, although other theories and possibilities exist. The name Christopher Columbus is the Anglicization of the Latin Christophorus Columbus. Also well known are his name's rendering in modern Italian as Cristoforo Colombo and in Castilian Spanish as Cristóbal Colón.

Columbus' voyages across the Atlantic Ocean began a European effort at exploration and colonization of the Western Hemisphere. While history places great significance on his first voyage of 1492, he did not actually reach the mainland until his third voyage in 1498. Likewise, he was not the earliest European explorer to reach the Americas, as there are accounts of European transatlantic contact prior to 1492. Nevertheless, Columbus's voyage came at a critical time of growing national imperialism and economic competition between developing nation states seeking wealth from the establishment of trade routes and colonies. Therefore, the period before 1492 is known as Pre-Columbian.

The anniversary of the 1492 voyage (vd. Columbus Day) is observed throughout the Americas and in Spain. Columbus had noted that the Indian people were friendly. Controversy came later, since first person accounts depict the genocide of the indigenous people by the Spanish conquistadors.

Contents [hide] 1 Life 1.1 Nationality 1.2 Early life 1.3 Physical appearance 1.4 Language 2 Background to voyages 2.1 Navigation plans 2.2 Funding campaign 3 Voyages 3.1 First voyage 3.2 Second voyage 3.3 Third voyage 3.4 Fourth voyage 4 Governorship and arrest 5 Later life 6 Legacy 6.1 Columbus Ascendant 6.2 Modern day 7 Notes 8 References 9 See also 10 External links 10.1 IMDB

Life

Nationality Main article: Origin theories of Christopher Columbus It is most widely accepted that Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa, located in modern-day Italy.[1] Other alternatives have been proposed, but no proof has been determined. Clues to Columbus' origin such as learned languages and DNA samples have been studied, but to date, DNA tests seem to show that Columbus was probably not a Sephardic Jew (Spanish).[citation needed]

Early life According to the most widely acknowledged biographies, Columbus was born between August and October 1451 in Genoa. His father was Domenico Colombo, a middle-class wool weaver working between Genoa and Savona. His mother was Susanna Fontanarossa. Bartolomeo, Giovanni Pelligrino and Giacomo were his brothers. Bartolomeo worked in a cartography workshop in Lisbon for at least part of his adulthood.[1]

While information about Columbus' early years is scarce, he probably received an incomplete education. He spoke a Genoese dialect.[citation needed] In one of his writings, Columbus claims to have gone to the sea at the age of 10. In the early 1470s, he was in the service of René I of Anjou in a Genoese ship hired to support his unfortunate attempt to conquer the Kingdom of Naples. Later he allegedly made a trip to Chios, in the Aegean Sea. In May 1476, he took part in an armed convoy sent by Genoa to carry a valuable cargo to northern Europe.

Physical appearance

Christopher Columbus, conjectural image by Sebastiano del Piombo in the Gallery of Illustrious Men (Corridoio Vasariano), Uffizi, Florence. Although an abundance of artwork involving Christopher Columbus exists, no authentic contemporary portrait of the man has been found. In 1595 Theodore de Bry made an etching after a painting of Columbus, made in his lifetime.[2] The etching shows resemblance with the portrait of Sebastiano del Piombo, so this painting might depict Columbus with some accuracy. Over the years, artists who reconstruct his appearance have done so from written descriptions. These writings describe him as having reddish hair, which turned to white early in his life, as well as being a lighter skinned person with too much sun exposure turning his face red.

Despite the clear description of red hair or white hair, textbooks use the image on the right so often that it has become the iconic image of Columbus accepted by popular culture.

Language Although Genoese documents have been found about a weaver named Colombo, it has also been noted, in preserved documents, that Columbus also wrote in Spanish, and that he used the language, with Portuguese or Catalan phonetics, even when writing personal notes to himself, to his brother, Italian friends, and to the Bank of Genoa. His two brothers were wool weavers from Genoa and also wrote in Spanish. Genovese Italian was not a written language at that time. Columbus wrote in a Northern Italian language.

Latin, on the other hand, was the language of scholarship, and here Columbus excelled. He also kept his journal in Latin, and a "secret" journal in Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.66.41 (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Stop the Misinformation

1- "Genovese Italian was not a written language at that time." Genovese was written since Roman times.

2- "no authentic contemporary portrait of the man has been found" The only state sponsored painting by Alejo Fernández that heads the article is possibly the only one painted during Christophers lifetime.

3- "Moreover, Columbus believed one degree represented a shorter distance on the earth's surface than was commonly held." Columbus NEVER believed in a degree of only 56 1/2. If so he never would have been able to find his way home.

4- "In 1485, Columbus presented his plans to John II, King of Portugal." In 1485 Columbus was living in Castile.

5- "Portugal was no longer interested in trailblazing a western route to the East." Portugal knew about the lands of America and knew neither India nor Asia was located at 3000 miles west and so did Columbus.

82.154.87.198 17:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

6.- "Cristopher Colombus"-- has been translated in manRegardless of what historians might call him, it should be mentioned that the English and Spanish variations of his names are only "versions", and it should be mentioned he never got a birth certificate from any English or Spanish speaking country. He is commonly referred to as Cristopher Colombus by many historians and people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.211.64 (talk • contribs)

In history, all names are rendered into the language of the author, not the original one. That counts especially for all kings. No emotion involved there, it's historiography. --Flammingo^Hey 08:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Flamingo, Can you tell me what you translate Pablo Picasso's name to in English? or Leonardo da Vinci? Hernán Cortés? Vasco da Gama?... They are NOT translated because this is their real "proper" names. The name Cristóbal Colón was never translated to Latin in Pope Alexander's letters; 3 letters and 3 times the name appears as COLON. The lie is better covered-up by wrongly translating the name into Christopher Columbus. You cannot translate Bill Gates to Guilherme Portões nor can you translate Cristóbal Colón to Christpher Member. Look it up because that is the TRUE translation of the Greek Kõlon=Member. Not Columbus .. Colón is NEVER Columbus. The lie of a genoese was better implanted with a false translation of his name.82.154.80.205 00:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Colombo.bz

Please look up the meaning of Colon in Spanish and then translate it into English and Italian because the translation is NOT Colombo nor Columbus. Columbus and Colombo are a corruption of the name the Admiral used: Cristoval Colon. 81.193.220.70

Please stop this. Colombia comes directly from the name of the discoverer. Colom-> Colombia. Ok? In Spanish Colom is pronounced Colon, try it with one spanish speaker and you'll see. Colombus is the correct translation of Colom into latin. The word "colonization" comes from the spanish Colon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.141.92.14 (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Defacing

Someone has defaced this article with titling a section 'How to get a life' as the header title. Since this article is protected can an administrator or ranking editor please remove it.Antonbomb22 01:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Antonbomb22

Not Columbus

This picture [1] is not Christopher Columbus. The man in the picture is Paolo Toscanelli.--87.14.223.2 17:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC

You're right. I guess someone didn't read that article carefully and just put the pic there....or they wanted to confuse us. I never thought Columbus would wear a turban-like head covering...Danny sepley 04:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No picture of Columbus exist. This is an extraordinary fact. It is unbelivable that such an important man had not been portraited. Sure he was. These pictures have been destroyed for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.141.92.14 (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Headline text

Prove it

Traditional Information

The world has known for centuries that Leif Erikson was the first Westerner to discover the Americas around 1000 AD, over 500 years before Columbus. However, Erikson was not the first one who successfully opened the door for European people and cultures to thrive in the New World. The article continues with the tradition that Christopher Columbus was the first to accomplish this feat.

Reply by Francesco da cosenza

Go back to school !! the trip made by Colombo in 1492 marks a great marker in the history of our world because it gave way to what we now know GlobalisaTION. It opened the door to the west and gave Europe and the world A NEW WORLD !!! this is why that trip was so important !! During the albo cinomenian the first to cross into America were DINOSAURUS !!! eheheheh did they Discove America !!?? water currents around the globe took Phoenicians, Africans, Nordman, Egytians Romans and so forth to the American throughout time, and evidences of that are scattered allover the Americas !! SO WHAT !!?? these guys never knew where they were, never opened the doors to the world !! For example greek scientists during the first millennium before christ wrote about evolutionary processes, the Calculus, the Origin of the earth but the revolution only started When Liebnitz, Darwin, etc etc opened the eyes of the world and placed there a marker for all time !!! Please do yourself a favour " LET GO " writing at this level requires a man with multitalent and multidisciplinary knowledge !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.66.41 (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not in Question

The great landmass of the Americas was probably reached hundreds, if not thousands of times before 1492, whether by island-hopping or by accident. The Vikings famously had brief settlements on the fringes of what would one day be named "North America."

That's not the point.

None of the previous contacts with American Indians was of any consequence. As the renowned historian and Americanist, Marshall Eakin of Vanderbilt University, puts it, "The Columbian Moment was the single most important event in at least the last one thousand years." (Emphasis his, from Conquest of the Americas, available on DVD.) In trying to reach Asia to set up trading posts, Columbus accidentally put the New World on the Old World map and vice versa. The New World had no idea there was another mainland on the other side of the world, and neither did Columbus or any of his contemporaries in Renaissance Europe. It was a major discovery for both hemispheres. For better or for worse, nothing has been so consequential to so many people on so many continents, and we can't merely wish away the unparalleled importance of Columbus's leap of faith .

Maybe so, but you don't get to say that he was the first there because you decide other contacts were not important. --JmalcolmG 21:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Columbian/Anti-Western Bias

This article leans toward blaming Columbus specifically for a lot of the bad aspects of the Age of Colonization and skimps on the details about both Columbus' views (i.e. that the Amerindians were fellow humans) and how the Age of Colonization helps peoples from both the Old and New World. Additionally, there is little if any mention of Amerindian atrocities against both their own people and European settlers. Both sides had their peaceful people, and both sides had their warmongering people. Chiss Boy 16:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Columbus didn't hold that view at all, and I would argue that this article is a complete whitewash of what Columbus really did and thought. Columbus was quite clearly only interested in two things about this journey: gold, and slaves. Considering Amerindians as "fellow humans" would mean that you wouldn't write things like "With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want", nor would you write, as he did, that "As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first Island which I found, I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts."

Furthermore, quoting Howard Zinn, when gold couldn't be found he and his men "ordered all persons fourteen years or older to collect a certain quantity of gold every three months. When they brought it, they were given copper tokens to hang around their necks. Indians found without a copper token had their hands cut off and bled to death. The Indians had been given an impossible task. The only gold around was bits of dust garnered from the streams. So they fled, were hunted down with dogs, and were killed. Trying to put together an army of resistance, the Arawaks faced Spaniards who had armor, muskets, swords, horses. When the Spaniards took prisoners they hanged them or burned them to death. Among the Arawaks, mass suicides began, with cassava poison. Infants were killed to save them from the Spaniards. In two years, through murder, mutilation, or suicide, half of the 250,000 Indians on Haiti were dead."

I could go on, but you get the point

krou 13:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the article before adding direct quotes from Columbus's journal that were removed ultimately in my mind because they were too negative. Columbus has a legacy that is created through lies in the American Education system. Systematically the brutality and violence he caused has been ignored, and that doesn't end at wikipedia. If you have some thoughts on how to best deal with this situation I would be interested in hearing them, although I am not very optimistic that it will matter much. If you cannot list even the basic facts you listed concerning his actions that are not even remotely in question, then I wonder how any article in wikipedia will ever deviate from government line.

Let's say the American Government is lying to school children and it's population about Christopher Columbus simply for the want to enjoy a respectability towards our founding. What chance do any of us have correctly explaining the value of something that they've lied about that is far worse for us to know as it concerns centers of power? What about the Vietnam war?

If a government has successfully used propaganda to change the historical facts about a man who committed mass genocide for imperial profit, then what chance do we have any explaining anything regardless of the clearness of facts.

I don't mean to continue on, but let's take A Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. The articles on it sound like they are from someone who has never actually read the entire book. It doesn't include context to the information, so it mostly sounds like a very formal discussion of the way our current market should function, but there are very real lessons about where we are headed as a society, about government control, about a progressive tax much much much MUCH heavier than anything remotely close to what we have now.

Yet it's rarely mentioned. So this is another unknown fact. Try to add it to one of the pages concerning it, and watch it be removed. It's irrelevant that it's true, because it's not the type of thing that people want you discussing. Subjects that fit that criteria are often misrepresented, if not in the exact opposite of the intended meaning.

Honestly, How do you combat that in a system where the major causes in change are 1. What most people know, and 2. The desire to change it.

Once you've properly internalized values, like Columbus wasn't a bad guy as shown by the person who initially started this topic, then of course it's going to take a huge amount of resources. One individual generally has more important things to take care of, and at best can only manage to keep up with a few articles.

Columbus and co.'s atrocities against the indigenous are well documented, and should be included. Don't delete those revisions. --JmalcolmG 21:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting topic though.

Don't worry, you're not alone. I made some edits a while ago quoting directly from his journal, trying to give balance to the fact that Columbus fully intended to subjugate the Indians he met, and that he did not consider them as equals at all. All deleted and the page reverted to an older version, no reason given. Frankly, it stinks. -- krou 18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that C. Columbus came to conquer and dominate you must not lose sight of the times and ideals of those days. Rome conquered nations, Alexander the Great, the USA was began by conquerers and Columbus was not an isolated case. Even today there are nations in the old world that are occupied by conquerers example: Turqkey is an occupied territory. Lets not get weighted down on the fact that Columbus came after power, glory and gold. He was not the first and he was not the last. A small statement to this effect will do. The real atropcities were perpetrated by Columbus's followers. Columbus only ruled for 7 years and then only partlysince he was navigating most of the time. 81.193.220.70 20:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I can respect that he was not the only one, but this is not some zero sum game; if I had the time I'd quite happily document the actions of the Romans, et al. It simply doesn't follow that because everyone else did it we shouldn't include it. If Columbus came for power, glory, and gold, that should form a centrepiece of the article, because those were his primary motivations on making these trips. As it is, there is only one mention of the word "slave" in the entire piece, which is rather odd indeed, and there's no mention at all of many of the acts that occurred under his direction (especially such as those I described). Where gold is mentioned, it's always as if he either politely asked where to find it, or it was plucked out of rivers; there is not a single mention of how Columbus *and* his men (not just his men) brutally forced the natives to get the gold.

Another example ... consider this line: "The indigenous people he encountered, the Lucayan, Taíno or Arawak, were peaceful and friendly". Great, except that it doesn't continue to add exactly what Columbus' actions were when he first met them (this is about Columbus, right), because they were far from friendly (as quoted above).

As it is, the quotes from his journal seem to make him some sort of well-intentioned Christian, when the reality is far different. There needs to be a far better level of balance to this article that demonstrates these facts. Surely decisions on what to include or exclude from this piece should be on the basis of verifiable fact, not on an opinion of what is considered relevant? -- krou 21:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

People, don't forget that the objective of this article is to be objective. I want to point out 2 things:

- It is true that Columbus sailed to gain gold and glory. Columbus and the new settlers obliged them to collect gold etc. However, this isnt much different from what most people in Europe suffered, which were forced to pay heavy taxes to the king and lords, join the army in wars,... XVth century was not like middle ages, but life still was hard for poor people. The New Settlers were expecting the same or more from the indigenous; but it wasnt anything strange or too cruel for that age.

-While new settlers may have used heavy violence and killing to control the indigenous people, don't forget that they were clearly outnumbered. Thinking of the new settlers as the 'big brother', with all the copper tokens story and cutting hands seem fake to me. They couldn't control all the indigenous people that way; they could ask for an amount of gold periodically without all that effort, punishing indigenous tribes that didnt met the amount, or punishing people that didnt work (controlling indigenous one by one with copper tokens seem quite pointless and difficult). Besides, they didnt want to kill too many, so enough indigenous people kept working and didnt rebel. So, please, cite your sources of such cruelty. Don't forget than historians can make things up, specially in ages where Spain was enemy of other countries who didnt participate in the colonization of south america (England for instance). So it would be wise to cite sources from different points of view to assert that claims.

--85.59.56.195 20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did cite one of them: Howard Zinn, A People's History of America. Regardless of that, the main quotes I'm referring to come directly from Columbus' journal himself (see also the testimony of Bartolome de las Casas).

It doesn't matter if they were outnumbered. As Columbus himself pointed out, he could subjugate them all with just fifty men because they were peaceful and primitive in comparison. Incidentally, when the Arawaks did try to muster an army to fight, they were slaughtered.

As I pointed out previously, just because it wasn't strange or cruel for the time (which is partially incorrect, because there were some who considered it cruel) does not mean what I am referring to should not be included. At what point do you draw the line? As I said before: items should be included or excluded on the basis of fact. Objectivity means presenting both sides of the argument. As I've demonstrated, this article is far too lenient by omission.

Saying they didn't want to kill too many is just gross historical revisionism, because by 1650 none of the original Arawaks were left alive on the island. You don't manage to achieve such a feat by some mere accident, like you dropped a vase and it broke when you expected it to bounce around on the floor. Las Casas, for example, wrote that the Spaniards "thought nothing of knifing Indians by tens and twenties and of cutting slices off them to test the sharpness of their blades." He also said: "Endless testimonies . .. prove the mild and pacific temperament of the natives.... But our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy; small wonder, then, if they tried to kill one of us now and then.... The admiral, it is true, was blind as those who came after him, and he was so anxious to please the King that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians...."

There's plenty more to reference. The were cruel, and brutish, and thought of them as animals.

If you've got evidence that what Zinn wrote and quoted is fabricated or, as you put it, "made up", then make them known, otherwise the points I raise should be included (at the very least, Columbus' statements directly from his journal should be included because they are extremely relevant).

Zinn is a well-known historian, respected, and, as far as I'm aware, the primary facts he reveals here are not disputed. Very easy to say, well, that doesn't sound right, so it must be made up, but unless you've got evidence to the contrary, that's just your opinion, and that has nothing to do with the objectivity you're professing to support.

Also, if you wish to say, well, Zinn is biased, please note that I'm trying to refer directly to statements made by Columbus, and eye witnesses (Las Casas), and not any of Zinn's opinions or conclusions.

Objectivity is exactly what I'm getting at: this article is not objective. I mean, his first meeting with the Indians consisted of him forcibly capturing several Arawaks and imprisoning them, and all this article can talk about is how peaceful the Indians were. The article is about Columbus, and he was not peaceful when he met them.

I have to admit that I'm not keen on arguing this point much further, simply because I find it really disturbing that this information is being excluded for such flippant reasons. Seems to me that if I have to persist so hard to have a few quotes included from the main subject's own journal, then objectivity is not really what anyone is aiming for, but instead nice, comfortable truths. -- krou 23:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are fighting a battle I had given up on. I added information in the exact same way and it was removed. Many people want to believe an idealized version of the history, and that trumps accuracy. If you have suggestions, I'm open. q 05:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that when I first came across the stories of how Columbus enslaved whole native populations from islands, I couldn't really believe it until I read it for myself in Columbus' journals. I'm not surprised that people disbelieve it and try to edit such things out: how could any education system teach that this guy was a hero? I think the way to tackle this is with a gentle touch: making small changes, with as little in the way of editorial as possible. Especially avoid the use of the word 'genocide', or other hot button words, even if true. If the changes are small and impossible to argue, there may be a chance some of it may stick. I'm going to try, anyway. A number of additional facts will help round the picture out: e.g. Isabella ordering him to take the slaves that he brought to Spain back to where they came from (shows that slavery was not the norm), and the fact that his will was contested for five years in the courts (not what you would expect if he were poor) .Trishm 11:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerns over Genocide

Why is the Spanish genocide of the Indians not really mentioned here? Claiming that the human race commited no 'significant genocides' during all the fifty centuries that passed between the dawn of history and the eventual genocide of certain Indians by the Spaniards is... a clear sign of ignorance, not to mention nativeté.

Well...

The wiki on Genocide:

Genocide is the mass killing of a population of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as 'any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy [part or all of a cultural] group......'",

I don't think there's evidence that any of Columbus' actions were committed primarily out of an intent to destroy native society or kill off the Native Americans.

The snare 08:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, I don't recall writing that above sentence, I wonder how far back my contributions list goes, I'll check it The snare 10:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, if you check my contributions (if you can) you'll see I had NO contributions of the 26th, someone altered the page to make it look like it was me. The snare 10:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is incorrect. Samuel Morison (considered one of the foremost historians on Columbus) notes that "The cruel policy initiated by Columbus and pursued by his successors resulted in complete genocide" (from Christopher Columbus, Mariner), so historically it is accepted that he committed genocide.

Furthermore, the definition in Wikipedia of genocide also includes the proviso that it originates from "deliberate action(s) leading to the physical elimination of any of the above categories" (the above categories being ethnic, nationalist etc), which is surely correct if you read the history; genocide does not only require that they be killed because of their ethnicity, simply killing off an ethnic group through deliberate actions is considered genocide. The actions Columbus and the others took were quite deliberate, and resulted in the complete annihilation of this society. Not allowing reference to the fact that Columbus committed genocide is simply whitewashing this article even further. --krou 18:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, small note: the quote I used from Wikipedia seems to be from an older version being cached by Google. Still, even the formal definition makes an allowance for this case under the clause "killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part", all of which happened, all of them quite intentional. krou 18:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Columbus never commited any genocide. Columbus was trying not to KILL the natives but to RULE them. It is very diferent between killing them because they are natives and killing them because they refused, rightfully so, to be dominated. But don-t get the facts mixed up Columbus needed the Natives to have a fruitful empire. If he killed them he would have nobody to rule over. However the natives did not want to be ruled over thus the initial friendly relations begun to cause outburts, battles and finally wars. 81.193.220.70

Columbus committed mass genocide. He wasn't trying not to kill the natives, he killed them over many reasons including them not providing enough gold for him. What are you saying, genocide doesn't count if your primary goal isn't mass slaughter? If it's only the consequence it doesn't count?! q 05:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To me this is not much different than the neo-nazis saying the holocaust never happened. It's a shame to think that Western culture is just as biased as neo-nazis. But of course, unlike jews, the tainos have no lobbyists shouting for them. The scariest part to me was that within Columbus' lifetime, all the tainos in santo domingo were eradicated. The spanish even used them as target practice for new swords. 66.255.149.98 16:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually columbus did, in a sense, create mass genocide. Only indirectly, though he did slaughter thousands and thousands of indians according to the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" by textbook author James W. Loewen. This isn't an excerpt directly from the book but the book talks in length about columbus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nozgrd74 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources

When adding information to this article, please site sources, especially when the information added could be considered to be of a controversial nature. Bbagot 02:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC) --*******Michael Foucault*******--

Attention must also be paid to Foucault's thesis on the nature of truth. It's very important to realise that there was an interest group to benefit from this 'discovery'made by the navigator in question .Ms Leslie Ann C.Tyson The University of the West Indies, St Augustine ..Trinidad & Tobago

Columbus didn't discover America

Ok. This next post has been QUOTED out of the book "Ancient Civilizations" my Time Life, Student Library:

Italic textChristopher Columbus didn't discover America: Ice Age people did! Between 25, 000 and 16, 000 years ago, low sea levels exposed a wide land bridge between Siberia and Alaska. Hunter-gatherer families wandered across this land bridge, following drifting animal herds. It may have taken them many years to cross, but eventually they established settlements is North and South America."

It's clear that Christopher Columbus didn't discover America, and that it is a false information. It should have that written down in a section of the Christopher Columbus page. 203.129.51.219 11:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (And I wouldn't go to the User:203.129.51.219/203.129.51.219 May 7, :07 am (USA)

i agree, columbus was actually the last person to 'discover' the americas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nozgrd74 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Poorly written article

I'll try to help on tightening up the article, the structure is really clumsy, as if it's been copied from a couple of different old encyclopaedias. Sentences like the following drive me crazy - "Columbus' problem was, experts did not accept this estimate." . --mgaved 13:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Language Imprecisions

The language part seems to be inconsistent and written by following several unproved theories. I'm not an expert, but from what I learned about Columbus, he did not write in genovese (the explanation provided seems to be fair, it wasn't a real written language) and had some trouble writting in Spanish (Castellano), using several Portuguese forms in the process although this is the most used language in his letters. What is out of the question is that he was able to write in Latin, only (religious) scholars would know the language, never sailors. The greek part is just absurd. Also, northern italy is not a language.

ALSO - SUGGEST CHANGE European "culture" to European "colonies" in the first paragraph of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipkais (talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Marriage

It has been of some concern to scholars that a simple sailor with no possessions of his own was allowed to marry the daughter of a nobleman, it would be interesting to approach the subject as an example to the doubts on his origin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.22.16.215 (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

O Mistério Colombo Revelado[1], about the life of Christopher Columbus, proves that Columbus could not marry with Filipa Moniz without authroization from King John II, who was master of the Order of Santiago because Filipa was a member of Santiago. Colombo.bz

The return route

Columbus return route also creates doubt in scholars, because he took the correct (fastest) route through the Atlantic without having any knowledge on the maritime currents in the middle of the ocean. There are also some suspicions about the three (3) storms that made him stop in two Azores islands and in Lisbon in conjunction with the time spent in Lisbon leads to believe in some kind of link between him and the Portuguese crown, specially the Queen, since most part of his stay in Lisbon was spent in a rather complicated trip to Vila Franca de Xira to meet the queen. Also he stopped once again in Faro before heading to Spain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.22.16.215 (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Columbus was portuguese

Columbus, better, Colon, was born in Portugal and he was a noble man. He was King João II friend's and a spie of the portuguese crown in Castilla. Why he's first landing was portuguese land? The portuguese and spanish were rivals! Why he stands in Lisbon a several days, and speaks with portuguese King after discovery America? Don´t forget that the portuguese people were, at that time, the kings of the sea! They have the sea knowledge at that time! Don't joke! The portuguese were the discovery master's at XV and XVII century. The Spanish, English and Dutch just stolen the lands discovery by portuguese people. Portugal is a small contry, and at that time portuguese were less than one million! Poucos mas bons!

Sailing off the edge of the Earth

The article says:

Following Washington Irving's myth-filled 1828 biography of Columbus, Americans commonly believed Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan because Europeans thought the Earth was flat.[2] In fact, few at the time of Columbus’s voyage, and virtually no sailors or navigators, believed this.[3] Most agreed Earth was a sphere. This had been the general opinion of ancient Greek science, and continued as the standard opinion (for example of Bede in The Reckoning of Time) until Isidore of Seville misread the classical authors and stated the Earth was flat, inventing the T and O map concept. This view was very influential, but never wholly accepted. Knowledge of the Earth's spherical nature was not limited to scientists: for instance, Dante's Divine Comedy is based on a spherical Earth. Columbus put forth arguments based on the circumference of the sphere. Most scholars accepted Ptolemy's claim the terrestrial landmass (for Europeans of the time, comprising Eurasia and Africa) occupied 180 degrees of the terrestrial sphere, leaving 180 degrees of water.

I believe that some more information should be added here. Pythagoras proposed a spherical world in the sixth century BCE. In the second century CE, Roman astronomer Ptolemy proves the Earth was spherical, pointing out the round shadow of the Earth during a lunar eclipse, and the glaring fact that the masts of sailboats come into view on the horizon before the hull. This information is necessary because the public generally seems to believe that the Queen was worried that Columbus would sail off the Earth, and that stupid myth refuses to die.

Bartolomeu Dias

Bartolomeu Dias sailed around the south of Africa, not the Horn of Africa.

   --Yes, I already tried changing this, only to have it immediately changed back and my request for a reason ignored. Too bad there's not better supervision of the pages. Soclear 17:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Change it again. If it's cited, it should stay. If not, contact me. --Eyrian 17:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

   --OK thank you, I've changed it again and so far it is staying. Here is the listing where I changed it before:

1. (cur) (last) 15:43, 23 March 2007 Indon (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted to revision 117296751 by SpuriousQ.) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 15:41, 23 March 2007 Soclear (Talk | contribs) (changed "Horn of Africa" to "southern tip of Africa") (undo)

So I eventually learned about editor talk pages, and posted to the Indon talk page:

Hello, could you please tell me why the Christopher Columbus page says that Bartholomeu Dias rounded the Horn of Africa, when it was the Cape of Good Hope that he rounded? Thank you. Soclear 04:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

 ..and why do you ask me?? — Indon (reply) — 11:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you the one who changed it back?:
1. (cur) (last) 15:43, 23 March 2007 Indon (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted to revision 117296751 by SpuriousQ.)
2. (cur) (last) 15:41, 23 March 2007 Soclear (Talk | contribs) (changed "Horn of Africa" to "southern tip of Africa")
Soclear 14:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I got no answer to the last posting, and when I posted the question again later, it was removed.

I'm still learning the system here, but I thought that if a person made a change, they would be contacted before having it undone, or at least a reason would be given in the change log. Or at the very least they would be able to contact the editor to get a reason for the undo, and then could appeal to a higher editor if necessary. How else can accuracy be achieved? Was there a different procedure I should have followed? Thank you. Soclear 23:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Was he Greek?

Thought this link might be interesting. It lays claim to Christopher Columbus being Greek.

What are peoples view on this?

Regards,

Φilhellenism 20:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is patently obvious that he was born in Colombia ;) —Ian Spackman 15:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have heard the Greek hypothesis before. There is a book about it called A NEW THEORY CLARIFYING THE IDENTITY OF CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: A BYZANTINE PRINCE FROM CHIOS, GREECE written by Ruth G Durlacher-Wolper. I must admit it makes a convincing argument and provides substantial evidence. The author claims he was a greek-speaking noble from the island of Chios, which was at the time a part of Genova's maritime empire. In any case I think that the first paragraph should be changed to reflect that fact that the birthplace and nationality of Colombus is not known and that there are several hypotheses each with its pros and cons. Schizophonix 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

CRISTOFORO COLOMBO "IS" DEFINETLY ITALIANO

It's so evident.

But it's hard to admit.

Too many important people in history are from that country.

The fact he settled in Spain only prove that Italy wasn't yet a country able to provide him with funds for his travels.

And It's not Genoa. IT IS GENOVA (pronounced 'Jeh-no-vah, not Jee-'no-ah).

What'll be next?

Amerigo Vespucci not being italian too?

• Cuna Civitatis* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.55.218.75 (talk) 18:23, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Really nice rhetorics and all, but you provide no evidence whatsoever. Schizophonix 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this gentleman but still most evidently he is Italian.--Donrub 17:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"I agree with this gentleman but still most evidently he is Italian." ...The problem is that the history of this man has been told with the most important time of his life left in the dark. User *Cuna Civitatis* states that C.C. went to Spain because he could not get financing from Genova. Wrong. C. C. lived not in Spain but in PORTUGAL where he married, where he sailed, where he was uncle to Marquises, Counts, Lord Chamberlains and brother-in-law to 2 Portuguese Captains. He was also named "Our Special Friend in Seville" by the King of Portugal. All of these things happened long before 1492. Therefore he never went from Genova to Spain he went from Portugal to Spain and guess what? C. C. saif in a letter that Portugal was "his homeland" and Queen Isabel's accountant said C. C. was Portuguese in 1487. Get it? 81.193.191.235 20:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Object to the tone of the article

Let's admit that there is a lot of doubt about Columbus life. Not only his origins.

When I read something like: "Columbus died in Valladolid" I wonder where this selfconfidence comes from. Let's see: when Columbus was dying, the king decided to visit him. A travel was organized. The king was in Valladolid. The king left Valladolid to go see Columbus. Therefore Columbus was not in Valladolid. In case of doubt, the town house of Valladolid undertook an exhaustive study about this subject. Go read it at Valladolid library. Writers of the study were of the opinion that Columbus never visited Valladolid and it was completely impossible that he had died there, for many references of that fact would exist and none was found even when the correct documents could be consulted.

So I request that "Columbus died in Valladolid" is rewritten to something like: "According to what is commonly believed by those who have never checked, Columbus is said to have died in valladolid". Ok, I am exagerating, but you get my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.141.92.14 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)