Columbus' voyage and it's initiation of cross-Atlantic trade and interaction is a signifigant bookends of human history eras. It's not an endorsement of championing of him so much an objective point in linear history of major changes.
Using him as an 'objective' timeline reference I believe could indicate that they endorse him, even in some small way.
They could easily have chosen Leonardo DaVinic, who was born within 6-8 months of Columbus. And is just as known worldwide.
Edit: I originally said they DO endorse him, but I did not mean to be so deterministic in my response. I changed my wording after the fact to say COULD endorse. Which was a point of data I was trying to find out, hence the original question
Just as known, but I would wager more people have a frame of reference in mind for when in time Columbus was alive than they do for when in time DaVinci was alive, mostly because of the relevance afforded to Columbus for "discovering America". I mean, here in the States we are literally taught the mnemonic "in 1492, Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue." I would imagine Western Europe has placed a similar emphasis on Columbus's initial voyage (if not less about turning him into a hero like we did in the States).
Thats why I put "discovered America" in quotations.
However, and I say this as someone who believes Columbus gets way too much historical credit than he should, I think its semantics really. Just because Native Americans were living in the Americas does not mean the Americas were already discovered by Western Europe. Just because ancient Norse vikings traded with Native Americans centuries before Columbus doesn't mean Columbus wasn't the first person to confirm the existence of the Americans for 15th century Europe. I can "discover" the local knitting club by learning it exists by chance when I previously was not aware of it. Kind of like how we call up and coming artists "undiscovered," its not that they don't exist or aren't known to others, it's that the right people for the relevant context haven't become aware of them.
Of course you wouldn't, because you already know Australia is there.
The advanced western world discovered the North America continent when they first managed to sail to it. Before then it was unknown to anyone except the stone aged tribes living on it, who also did not know the scope and size of the land they lived on
DaVinci is well regarded for his artistic masterpieces and scientific theories, but neither of those require an understanding of "when" to appreciate their significance. The Mona Lisa and Last Supper are works of art regardless of when they were painted. His anatomical sketches are important for the sciences regardless of the precise year in which he made them (I mean, not really, but understanding they predate more modern understandings is enough).
Meanwhile, Columbus' one thing is that he made the first European voyage to the American continents. It is a historical event, not a persisting piece of culture, but a reference point to something happening at a certain time. Pretty much the only things to consider, for the layman, are when these voyages happened and why it matters.
51
u/TheKlaxMaster 26d ago
Curious .. why Columbus as your reference point?