It is quite puzzling, the level of ignorance, that a colonized people have been so cleverly misguided to believe that a man's supposed discovery should be so celebrated. We can sit and argue whether this was a discovery or not. The focus here isn't about discovery but rather the celebratory nature by which we approach the life of a man based on those highlights that praise his life. The truths omitted would make any civil human being cringe and quickly change views. Realistically, his supposed discovery was a premise to the near extinction of indigenous societies. For this reason, Columbus initial voyages can be viewed more like a surveillance process.
Again, it is then safe to say that history is told from the viewpoint of the conqueror. Was there little or no history prior to Columbus voyages to these lands inhabited by the indigenous? Well, there obviously was. The problem isn't necessarily in the teachings of history but rather the omissions of negative truths and the addition of text that makes what is taught so outstanding.
Photo: FoxNewsLatino |
Indeed, if it were up to history, it would say otherwise.
From History to Statue
For the record, a discovery is defined as that which one gets knowledge of, learns of or gains sight of such as something previously unseen¹. Hence, Columbus did gain sight of that which HE had previously unseen, at the same time, to say Columbus discovered America is in itself saying that history is indeed one-sided. Thus, the lands Columbus' supposedly discovered were very well know to the indigenous people of that time, the real discoverers.
“History is written by the victors.” -Winston Churchill
¹ Dictionary.com
No comments:
Post a Comment