Do you think that perhaps we should start to shift our focus away from Columbus, and toward Leif Erickson as a historic figure worthy of praise and acclaim for his exploration?
Not particularity, while Columbus had many many faults, it was his voyages that led to Europeans coming to the Americas. Leif is noteworthy but effectively had no impact on history at least as far as opening the New World up.
Leif Erickson didn’t really discover America. And neither did Columbus. It was some unknown Siberian who discovered America.
What Columbus did was unite the old world and the new world together.
There were people here before either of them.
Sigh. The Age of Exploration really means nothing.
It was a good attempt. Time to ripe down and pulverize those Leif Erickson statues too.
Not true, the Age of Exploration changed the world and very quickly. It was devastating to millions but also seems to be a major link in the explosive technological change the world experienced from that point forward.
It doesn’t matter. We need to pulverize the statues of every explorer, or else you’re a racist Nazi who loves slavery.
So this thread was a false flag? Why waste our time?
Couldn’t we just stick to statues of racist nazis who loved slavery? Why the slippery slope?
People are complaining about exploitation, not exploration.
I know the two words look similar. Maybe that’s where the confusion comes from.
Limitations are bad–let’s ripe down and pulverize that statue of limitations I keep hearing about.
A discussion about the relative contributions of Erikson vs. Columbus can be had. This however, is not it. I’m not clear on if what you are going for is satire but to me it’s not working that way. Instead, it seems a lot like trolling. In fact, this thread takes a similar form as a previous thread, whereby a potentially viable topic is started and then immediately turns to unreasonable lashing out.
I’m going to give it a pass in light of current circumstances and suggest you avoid topics that may cause unnecessary stress.
[/moderating]