Lost & Found
I love the way Thomas Ayres describes the “discovery” of America :
On October 12, 1492, the natives on a small island in the central Bahamas discovered Christopher Columbus. They found him lost on their beach, along with several equally pallid companions who could not speak well enough to be understood and all of whom had an atrocious sense of fashion. If the natives had been able to understand the gibberish spoken by these strangers, they would have been surprised to learn that, although he did know where he was, Columbus was claiming their island for Spain – whatever that was.
That seems like a more reasonable way to describe the “discovery” of land that’s already inhabited.
8 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“who could not speak well enough to be understood”
And who quite literally believed that they were on the opposite side of the planet.
Comment by anonymous — November 28, 2005 @ 4:21 am
Far be it from me to take the side of the Spanish invaders during a discussion of the colonization of the Americas. However, I think it’s a bit petty to make fun of their believing they were on the other side of the world at this point in time. After all, they were doing something arguably completely new, and mistakes as to location can be forgiven.
That said, Columbus apparently went to his grave insisting that he was in the east indies. That was pretty dumb.
Comment by Ross A Lincoln — November 28, 2005 @ 9:06 am
Point taken, Ross, and those so-called native americans were quite as ignorant as the Spanish they found wandering around on the beach. Greg, I venture to guess that you liked the book/movie “Dances With Wolves”.
Comment by pickleweedpete — November 28, 2005 @ 6:31 pm
It’s always instructive to take the view of the other fella. “Walk a mile in his shoes” and all that. We need to remember that history is written by the victors. The losers may have no voice, but that doesn’t mean that their viewpoint is somehow invalid.
The native americans (“so-called”, pete?) who met Columbus on the beach had no idea of the violence these newcomers were capable of, and didn’t know that they and their tribes would soon be either enslaved or murdered, or both.
Comment by my-crackpot-theories — November 29, 2005 @ 9:35 am
Think about it, m-c-t. The Cherokees, the Crees, (and Navahos, Pimas, etc., etc.) are no more “native” to the americas than those who arrived after them, are they? Didn’t we all originally come from someplace else?
And I think archeologists have proven time and time again that violence, warfare, and cruelty against our fellow human beings was commonplace in the “new world” long before the arrival of the europeans.
Comment by pickleweedpete — November 30, 2005 @ 1:28 pm
by the accounts written at the time, the indigenous people of the Bahamas were rather peaceful. Of course, there were violent groups of Native Americans who enslaved other people, etc. But, these particular ones were not.
As far as not being “native” as in “didn’t evolve there” is a pretty bullshit stance. Having been there for 12,000 years or so – AND NOT having homo sapiens there when you show up DOES in fact make you more native than those who showed up later.
Comment by Dave — November 30, 2005 @ 3:27 pm
“More” native is an oxymoron, Dave. Words are meaningless if we employ them any way we want to.
Comment by pickleweedpete — November 30, 2005 @ 7:57 pm
We are all out of Africa, yet we also call the land where we were raised our native land.
Comment by Kamachanda — December 10, 2005 @ 8:37 am