Ms. Delaney has also written a full-length book, "Columbus and the Quest for Jerusalem", which I haven't read all the way through but which appears to be a more thorough treatment of the material covered in this article.
(Disclaimer: personally acquainted with the author.)
For some reason, in the English wikipedia article for Christopher Columbus [1] you can read: "Christopher Columbus... was an Italian master navigator who...".
On the other hand, the article about the theories of Christopher Columbus' origin [2] says: "The exact ethnic or national origin of Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) has been a source of speculation since the 19th century".
Considering this, and the fact that Italy became the nation we know around the 19th century, I wonder why the (semi-protected) article reads like that. I think it should be updated.
Italians identified as Italians way before Italy was a state, Italia as a region was defined in the roman empire, and the populace recognize unity even under the different domination and independent kingdoms that rose and fall until unification.
There's also no doubt about Columbus origin, there's a bunch of rumors and propaganda amplified by people repeating them as if these are well researched theories - notice instead how a Norwegian is claiming it's Norwegian, a Portuguese it's claiming it's Portuguese, a Polish is claiming it's Polish.. and quite many of these writing were wrote during the rise of ultranationalisms across Europe. Not hard to figure out the pattern there.
Shame having to defend his Italianità after the tragedy of his actions, but still.
I don't know about Columbus in particular, but most famous people like him have people from different countries continuously edit warring over which country gets to "claim" him. I'll check the talk page ... yep, half the talk is arguing about this.
(As an American, I find this phenomenon extremely silly and very foreign feeling. I don't really care whether "my" ancestors get credit for something or not, especially given that national boundaries and people move around all the time. I find it vaguely nationalistic in the ugly sense. Maybe it's because there were plenty of great Americans who were clearly not born here in the first place?)
Very tangential: wondering what Montaigne had to say about the New World led me to his OF CANNIBALS (somewhat in the genre of Tacitus' Germania), in which I learned that Seneca had foreshadowed Monty Python's Black Knight.
"sed etiam si cecidit de genu pugnat": And when he falls he fights on his knees. (On Providence II.VI)
It's interesting that the author seems to think that focusing on the religiousness of Columbus somehow mitigates the horror of what he did, as if any religious person of the time would have behaved the same way, but there were other religious people with him who objected strenuously to his treatment of native americans and slavery.
Columbus’ poor treatment of the natives is a popular myth. He actually rigorously promoted their well-being (to the disappointment of his men), to the point where his soldiers chained him and sent him back to Spain on a boat to be rid of him.
This author (a practicing anthropologist) has a book going into more detail about his treatment of the natives.
Well, it's not surprising giving the time period and the Chivalric ideas that went with it. (Late Medieval period) The Reconquista had just finished up in Spain, and the Ottomans were now bursting on the scene in the Eastern Mediterranean. Columbus was a bit of a Zealot and believed that god spoke to him personally.
[+] [-] thirteenfingers|5 years ago|reply
(Disclaimer: personally acquainted with the author.)
[+] [-] fauria|5 years ago|reply
On the other hand, the article about the theories of Christopher Columbus' origin [2] says: "The exact ethnic or national origin of Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) has been a source of speculation since the 19th century".
Considering this, and the fact that Italy became the nation we know around the 19th century, I wonder why the (semi-protected) article reads like that. I think it should be updated.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_theories_of_Christopher...
[+] [-] LoSboccacc|5 years ago|reply
There's also no doubt about Columbus origin, there's a bunch of rumors and propaganda amplified by people repeating them as if these are well researched theories - notice instead how a Norwegian is claiming it's Norwegian, a Portuguese it's claiming it's Portuguese, a Polish is claiming it's Polish.. and quite many of these writing were wrote during the rise of ultranationalisms across Europe. Not hard to figure out the pattern there.
Shame having to defend his Italianità after the tragedy of his actions, but still.
[+] [-] evmar|5 years ago|reply
(As an American, I find this phenomenon extremely silly and very foreign feeling. I don't really care whether "my" ancestors get credit for something or not, especially given that national boundaries and people move around all the time. I find it vaguely nationalistic in the ugly sense. Maybe it's because there were plenty of great Americans who were clearly not born here in the first place?)
[+] [-] yummypaint|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 082349872349872|5 years ago|reply
"sed etiam si cecidit de genu pugnat": And when he falls he fights on his knees. (On Providence II.VI)
compare https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRwCPUEND1U
[+] [-] empath75|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] requin246|5 years ago|reply
This author (a practicing anthropologist) has a book going into more detail about his treatment of the natives.
[+] [-] vondur|5 years ago|reply