• lily33
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    134
    ·
    9 months ago

    Well, Columbus himself didn’t conquer much. He established a few settlement, but the real conquering was done by others.

    More accurate comparison would be:

    Describe Hernan Cortez in one word.

    (GPT-4) Conquistador

    • candyman337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Columbus and his men killed a lot of people brutally. He wasn’t really a conqueror, more a murderer and a monster

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        9 months ago

        He is far from distinguished in that endeavor. What makes him relevant to history is the part where he found people to brutalize, way the fuck elsewhere.

        The Mongols just saw some towns out across the grasslands and said “I’ll have that.” Ad nauseum.

        • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          Technically, he didn’t even find them first. Not only did Christopher Columbus never step foot on the NA continent, but Norsemen such as Leif Erikson were there before him centuries earlier. John Cabot made a much larger contribution to that.

          • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            Historical nitpicks and footnootes. The unambiguous inflection point for all of Europe going “holy shit, new lands” was that Italian schmuck and his three boats.

            Leif and company went “hey look, more Greenland” and barely amounted to Discovery channel dramatization. The century after Columbus’s return transformed three continents.

    • voodooattack@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Yet they both committed atrocities (torture, murder, rape and god knows what else) and only one is being hailed as “explorer”.

      Edit: I’m not saying we should hail Genghis Khan as an explorer, I’m saying that Christopher Columbus should be deplored as a murderer and a marauder, not praised as an explorer.

      • TheControlled@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        9 months ago

        Being a murderer and explorer are not mutually exclusive. If ChatGPT said “Murderer” one might presume that he was simply a local killer, captured by the law, and convicted a la Ted Bundy. Explorer is a more appropriate title for Columbus, like “Dictator” is likely more appropriate than “Murderer” for Hitler. Murderer, sadly, is too commonplace for people of their evil.

      • june@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Why do we assume ‘explorer’ has a positive moral implication?

        To me, looking through all of history, exploration has largely been a net negative to humanity. Modern day exploration isn’t terribly far off. The more we explore the ocean the more we strip it of resources. The more we explore space the more we look to exploit it for wealth.

        Explorers are enablers of worse people at best.

      • GBU_28
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Ghengis Khan was not an explorer!