On 9/4/05, William Chops Westfield <westfw@mac.com> wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2005, at 6:30 AM, Mauricio Jancic wrote:
> 
> > Although it looks like a true I should insist on the fact that all 
> > Europe
> > knew of America before Columbus, hence, he remains as the true 
> > discoverer.

  Because Amerigo Vespuci was convinced he arrived in India...

Does it matter who was the discoverer ? Unfortunately arriving of the
europeans kills all the civilizations there. Now they are killing
themselves.

Vasile

Vasile



> 
> One must have a digression to discuss the meaning of "discovery."  
> Certainly
> *I* can "discover" a new restaurant or store even if everyone else 
> already
> knows about it.  Likewise, one can argue that Columbus wasn't where he
> thought he was, and didn't find what he was looking for, and didn't know
> what he had found, and that therefore this was less (or perhaps MORE) of
> a discovery.
> 
> On a vaguely related note, we visited the "Lewis and Clark interpretive
> center" at the mouth of the Columbia river (WA state) as part of our
> summer vacation this year, and it brought home some of the difference
> between "discovered" and "explored" (and also "documented"!)  It's
> strange to think that in 1800, 300+ years after "discovery", we weren't
> clear on things like "is there a workable land route from the east to
> the west."  And what a nicely run and even "politically correct"
> expedition as well (although, perhaps that's partly the presentation.)
> 
> BillW
> 
> -- 
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist