*Cosmology and Controversy,* etc.

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-11-05 15:42, DaveC wrote:
I'm starting to think he was a lot smarter than he's given credit for - even if he was wrong about the distance to Asia.

I'm still trying to figure out who is saying he's not. Do you have a reference?

[ljbrs]

One thing: everybody on this list has access to jagnormous telescopes. You can find publically released data from every telescope if you know where to look. The web is a good place to start.

Of course, some people like to be control freaks over what exactly is observed and when and how. If that is the case, then you're going to have to right an observing proposal. In principle, though, a good observing proposal from an amateur could still get scope time. In practice, unfortunately, there's a lot of politics and money that means that it's difficult to break in. Still, not impossible.

JS Princeton:

Well, your idea is great. There are many astronomy sites that one can access and view whatever is offered. However, personally controlling a huge telescope requires clout. I had the feeling (from the great posts of yours) that you might additionally have clout.

I must be satisfied with my little (89 mm) Questar which has great optics for such a small telescope. However, my Questar does not do deep sky, and I am left begging other people in my wonderful astronomy group to look through their monsters (or the club monster, for that matter).

On the other hand, I realize that if people wish to pay enough, they can have access to some pretty large scopes. I dream, but come back to Earth before I spend a fortune.

I will see what I can find in the way of additional online sites where I can almost *be there*. Thank you for the idea.

Heheh - Having been brought up on Carry On Comedies, I'm having to bite my tongue here...!

Atko, I knew you were joking.

Now, to get back to Columbus...

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-11-05 21:52 ]</font>

[David Hall]

On 2002-11-05 21:49, ljbrs wrote:

Now, to get back to Columbus...

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Yeah, let's stay on topic here! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Really though, this is a fascinating discussion. I really like this site Grapes gave us. I spent a couple of hours reading through the debate on just which islands Columbus landed on first. I tend to agree with the author that the Plana Cays fit the facts the best, but there are still a lot of discrepancies.

[DaveC]

On 2002-11-05 20:42, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out who is saying he's not. Do you have a reference?

Nah - I don't use references. As kids we were taught that Columbus was a visionary - seeing the world as a sphere when everyone thought it was flat. We were taught that he discovered America. We were taught that he was a great leader motivating his men, against their fears of "falling off the edge" to sail off into the sunset. That he sold Isabella on an idea that no-one else gave any credence to.

I acknowledge that a lot of this was fanciful romanticism, but over the past several years we see allegations that he only took enough provisions to carry him 3,000 miles, that he falsified his journal, that he stubbornly refused to accept that the world was much larger than he believed, and that he could have got to Asia much faster by sailing around Africa and he should have know that. He didn't know how to use an astrolabe. He supposedly refused to accept the evidence of subsequent explorers that he hadn't reached Asia at all, and he allegedly died believing he had. And as an added insult, his expedition brought tobacco and syphillis back to Europe!

Somewhere between the romantic myth and the criticism may lie the truth about the man. We do know he DIDN'T discover America - and probably never claimed to. I personally hold Columbus as one of my heroes. I'm convinced he was a brave adventurer, a great navigator and a visionary without whom the "discovery" of the new world might have waited much longer. Whether the discovery was good or bad depends on one's point of view. Believe what you like, as HUb' would say.

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-11-06 10:41, DaveC wrote:
Believe what you like, as HUb' would say.

Well said.

[nebularain]

On 2002-11-06 10:41, DaveC wrote:
I personally hold Columbus as one of my heroes. I'm convinced he was a brave adventurer, a great navigator and a visionary without whom the "discovery" of the new world might have waited much longer. Whether the discovery was good or bad depends on one's point of view. Believe what you like, as HUb' would say.

It's almost a shame there aren't any Native Americans on the Board. This discussion could get really interesting really quick! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

BTW, Grapes, did you mean to put up an incomplete link?

[DaveC]

On 2002-11-06 12:51, nebularain wrote:
It's almost a shame there aren't any Native Americans on the Board. This discussion could get really interesting really quick! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

But there may well be, Neb. There's no doubt that sooner or later European civilization was going to get to the Americas. I'm not particularly proud of what our forebears did when they got here, but Columbus couldn't have foreseen that - he thought he was going to Asia. It's his bold adventurism that makes him a hero. He can't be held accountable for what subsequent explorers did to the indigenous populations of the Americas, any more than Albert Einstein can be blamed for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We don't often have the foresight to predict the outcome of a new discovery. Let's see if we do any better protecting those Martian microrganisms when we finally get there. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[David Hall]

On 2002-11-06 14:06, DaveC wrote:

I'm not particularly proud of what our forebears did when they got here, but Columbus couldn't have foreseen that - he thought he was going to Asia. It's his bold adventurism that makes him a hero. He can't be held accountable for what subsequent explorers did to the indigenous populations of the Americas, any more than Albert Einstein can be blamed for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That's exactly the opinion that this author gives about this topic, albeit with a bit more detail.

[Doodler]

Could Columbus's calculations for trip time been the result of his believing that he had open seas in which he could count on favorable UNINTERRUPTED currents with which to use? If North America did not exist, he could have covered the distance much faster on a transoceanic current that flowed into Asia without hitting a continental land mass. Even if his calcs of the Earth's size were off, he should still have moved at a pretty solid clip

[DaveC]

I don't think there's much doubt that Columbus anticipated open seas from Europe to Asia, and he had a reasonable estimate of the distance. Although he was apparently about 25% short of what the distance to the eastern side of Asia actually was (travelling along the 28th parallel), he really wasn't much at odds with the thinking of the day on the size of the earth. Its certainly not like he said it was 3000 miles and everyone else was saying it was 15000.

It does appear that he didn't share his estimates with his crew who may not have embraced a three or four month voyage, so the historical record may not be clear on what he said vs. what he thought.

The Americas affected both ocean currents and winds in a way which Columbus could not have anticipated. It appears, though that his trip to the Caribbean may have been assisted by the effects of the Americas, even if his planned voyage to Asia wasn't.

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-11-06 15:42, DaveC wrote:
I don't think there's much doubt that Columbus anticipated open seas from Europe to Asia, and he had a reasonable estimate of the distance. Although he was apparently about 25% short of what the distance to the eastern side of Asia actually was (travelling along the 28th parallel), he really wasn't much at odds with the thinking of the day on the size of the earth. Its certainly not like he said it was 3000 miles and everyone else was saying it was 15000.

I see no evidence for that claim at all.

What do you base it on? Remember, he still thought he had landed in Asia, right? Or is that a myth?

[ljbrs]

Yeah, let's stay on topic here!

Whatever. I believe that the subject for this thread originally was "Cosmology and Controversy."

But, what the heck...

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[nebularain]

On 2002-11-06 14:06, DaveC wrote:
But there may well be, Neb. There's no doubt that sooner or later European civilization was going to get to the Americas. I'm not particularly proud of what our forebears did when they got here, but Columbus couldn't have foreseen that - he thought he was going to Asia. It's his bold adventurism that makes him a hero. He can't be held accountable for what subsequent explorers did to the indigenous populations of the Americas, any more than Albert Einstein can be blamed for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I'm wondering if I should just let this drop - NAH! I have had interacted with native Americans. I have also been to a few Pow-Wows; they sell pictures of Christopher Columbus on "WANTED!" posters. Now, if there are Native Americans on this Board, I would be very surprised that they are not saying anything in regards to this. What's the point of participating in forums if you aren't going to be expressing your opinions and feelings? (Thus my statement.)

On 2002-11-06 14:11, David Hall wrote:
That's exactly the opinion that this author gives about this topic, albeit with a bit more detail.

OK, no you cannot blame Columbus for what his predicessors did; however, he did claim the land for Spain, thus disrespecting the rights of the indiginous peoples on the islands, which did open the door for the later barberous acts; he did engage in war with them, and he did at least try to make slaves out of them. That article does a good job at debunking the maybe supposed severity of Columbus' actions; however, I believe it down-plays his actions too far, as if he was completely justified in any wrong actions he participated in. And if it was some other European who made "first contact" with the Natives and acted the same, it would be his picture on the "WANTED!" posters just the same!

Mind you, I realize that if it weren't for Columbus' voyage, I might not be here today, same as the rest of us. I've just learned to see the other side of the coin, and it saddens me.


_________________
"Once again, we find that science is a two-headed beast. One head is nice, it gives us aspirin and other modern conveniences,...but the other head of science is bad! Oh beware the other head of science, Arthur, it bites!" - The Tick vs. Dinosaur Neil

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-11-06 22:56 ]</font>

[Jim]

Now, if there are Native Americans on this Board, I would be very surprised that they are not saying anything in regards to this.

I've been avoiding it.

I'm part Cherokee (the rest is German, Norman-English, and Scotch-Irish... I don't need any outsiders to have an argument).

(Columbus) did claim the land for Spain, thus disrespecting the rights of the indiginous peoples on the islands, which did open the door for the later barberous acts; he did engage in war with them, and he did at least try to make slaves out of them.

Columbus landed in the Americas, but he was headed for Asia with every intent of exploiting the natives; his change in destination did not change his motives in the least. He intended to get very, very rich and very, very powerful, and wasn't the least concerned at whose expense that should happen. Columbus lobbied endlessly to be named Viceroy of Spanish America.

Einstein realized the deadly uses for atomic energy and spoke against them. He supported the Manhattan Project because that was better than having Nazi Germany get there first. He was unconcerned with wealth and power; he turned down the chance to be president of Israel.

[Atko]

Are there any examples at all from history where a technologically advanced "civilization" has treated the peoples of a land it has discovered with complete respect?

It begs the question (forget the practicalities - this is purely a hypothetical scenario) how humankind might proceed if a planet were discovered rich in minerals and land, but populated, say, by Neanderthal or early Homo Sapiens cave dwellers. What are the bets we would take over and "develop" that planet, under the banner of bringing its people a better quality of life?

(What have the Romans ever done for us?)

[Atko]

....and the other side of the coin, based on our own history, maybe we shouldn't get too excited if SETI picks up that elusive signal?

[DaveC]

On 2002-11-06 18:59, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
I see no evidence for that claim at all.

What do you base it on? Remember, he still thought he had landed in Asia, right? Or is that a myth?

Well, I did garble my description. Thanks. He thought the world was about 20,000 miles in circumference and that Asia was much larger than it is. I knew I'd seen that somewhere and what I wrote was my flawed recollection. See Chapter II of the book at the following site:
http://sailor.gutenberg.org/etext98/ttscc10.txt

He believed he got to the eastern side of Asia because he thought it was only a few thousand miles west of Europe. One can only speculate as to why John Cabot's landing in North America in 1497 didn't make Columbus turn on the lights, but perhaps he hadn't heard about it (no CNN or Internet), or perhaps he thought perpetuating the argument that he'd gotten to the far east would generate funding for additional voyages.

I don't think by 1492 anyone had sailed east from Europe to the eastern extremity of Asia, so there wasn't a good extimate of the extent of the continent.

And that's why he thought he landed in Asia, even though his estimate of the circumference of the globe was not wildly out of whack.

Jim, thanks for your comments. Columbus probably has the dishonor of being the first in a long line of trans Atlantic slave traders. The Spanish incursion to the new world clearly became voyages of conquest rather than voyages of discovery. He claimed the land because that was his mission from the king and queen. One can assume he brought back "sample slaves" because he didn't encouner the eastern civilizations with which he could trade (or which he could pillage) for the spices and fabrics that he was supposed to bring back. Slavery must have been in vogue in Europe, else the native folk he brought back wouldn't have a value. (In school they used to teach kids that he just brought them back to prove he was there. Kids then didn't think much about whether the natives might not have wanted to go to Europe).
In hindsight we can look back on the Spanish conquests with disgust, but as someone else noted in this thread, would humans be likely to act much differently today on a world far from home? I'd like to think so, but I'm not sure.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-11-07 15:02 ]</font>

[AgoraBasta]

On 2002-11-07 14:25, DaveC wrote:
In hindsight we can look back on the Spanish conquests with disgust...

No you can't. The Spaniards and Portuguese tended to consider natives of Americas as (mostly/almost) rivals; that's quite unlike the views of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant barbarians, who considered natives as junk worse than whatever themselves were considered in their motherland.

[nebularain]

On 2002-11-07 13:54, Jim wrote:
I've been avoiding it.

I'm part Cherokee (the rest is German, Norman-English, and Scotch-Irish... I don't need any outsiders to have an argument).

I don't know if this is what you meant, but if I offended you, I do apologize.

[DaveC]

On 2002-11-07 19:40, AgoraBasta wrote:
The Spaniards and Portuguese tended to consider natives of Americas as (mostly/almost) rivals; that's quite unlike the views of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant barbarians, who considered natives as junk worse than whatever themselves were considered in their motherland.

I don't know Agora. Is this the Russian version of western history? The Spanish decimated the Inca and Aztec civilizations of South and Central America long before the Anglo Saxon protestants got there. The English and French settlers of Canada have a much different history of relationships with the native populace - exploitive and dominating perhaps, but there was an effort to coexist and trade peacefully. We still stuck them on reservations, however and buried their culture, but I dispute your allegation that the history of conquest of the Americas by Europeans cast anyone in a worse light than the Spanish. Just compare the terms "conquistador" (Spanish - conquerer) with the French "courreur des bois" (explorers or runners of the woods). In Canada we had a fur trade with the natives - in South America the Spanish conquered and stole the gold.

I don't think any of the European nations have anything to be proud of in their dealings with the "first nation" peoples of the western hemisphere, but the Spanish conquests were by far the most brutal from day one.

[Celestial Mechanic]

On 2002-11-07 19:40, AgoraBasta wrote:[Snip!]
No you can't. The Spaniards and Portuguese tended to consider natives of Americas as (mostly/almost) rivals; that's quite unlike the views of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant barbarians, who considered natives as junk worse than whatever themselves were considered in their motherland.

Just for the record, how was the history of the Russian conquest of Siberia, West Asia, and the Caucasus taught? How is it being taught now? What do you think about it?

What are the historical and current Russian views of the peoples conquered?

Don't mean to put you on the hot seat, but there is plenty of painful history enough to go around. And then we can compare notes together about our conquest/treatment/attitudes to the natives of Alaska!

[Jim]

On 2002-11-07 22:42, nebularain wrote:

On 2002-11-07 13:54, Jim wrote:
I've been avoiding it.

I'm part Cherokee (the rest is German, Norman-English, and Scotch-Irish... I don't need any outsiders to have an argument).

I don't know if this is what you meant, but if I offended you, I do apologize.

No offense even vaguely perceived; no apology necessary.

[AgoraBasta]

On 2002-11-08 13:28, Celestial Mechanic wrote:
Just for the record, how was the history of the Russian conquest of Siberia, West Asia, and the Caucasus taught?

Most of those peoples are still there with their land and culture, they're quite free to express their point of view on history. Some of them were conquered some joined peacefully. See, Russia is an empire - a home of many nations. No matter if a nation was conquered or peacefully joined, they became citizens of the Empire with all the same rigths plus local priviledges. Sure not all were quite happy, the Empire faced a few rebellions in Poland and one in Kirgizia (Central Asia). (Interestingly, the Poles rebelled against the very same model of local government that the Finns loved so much.)
The most cruel part in Russian history was related with North Caucasus. There were a lot of small tribes whose primary activity was banditism against bigger tribes and nations around them. Most of them were expelled into Turkey and Middle East, since Ottoman Empire was supporting them against Russia - such were the geopolitics of those times.
Now some western idiots try to support the Chechen bandits against Russia, though it's not really geopolitics these days, it's just that - hypocritical idiocy.

And then we can compare notes together about our conquest/treatment/attitudes to the natives of Alaska!

Yea, we can, kinda. There's still quite a few Alaskan natives who preserve the Russian Christianity, some still have Russian names. That must be because we treated them so bad...
You see - Russians never considered themselves as having any racial superiority over those whom they conquered or otherwise ruled. The Spaniards in Americas had much the same attitude - the Latin American nations are now the result of assimilation and not of extermination of natives as it was in the old US.

[DaveC]

I think we've wandered a bit too far off the topic! Phil will be getting out his padlock at any moment.

[ljbrs]

It is all right, as far as I am concerned (as long as there is something faintly resembling astronomy in the posts). However, I have let people know about this book (which had been sitting in my library gathering dust until I discovered it recently). I know that it can be purchased online. There is not much more to say about it.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[Celestial Mechanic]

On 2002-11-08 16:49, AgoraBasta wrote:
[snip!]
Now some western idiots try to support the Chechen bandits against Russia, though it's not really geopolitics these days, it's just that - hypocritical idiocy.

I suppose there are a few, but I hope most of us don't support the Chechens. I was very happy when the "Outer Empire" collapsed and Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc., became truly sovereign at last. And I was happy that the "Inner Empire" collapsed and Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, etc., were freed. But enough is enough. I hope that most sensible people in the West will agree with me that Russia should not be broken up into anything smaller because the smaller nationalities within Russia will not have the resources to make it on their own as full-fledged nations.

[Snip!]You see - Russians never considered themselves as having any racial superiority over those whom they conquered or otherwise ruled. The Spaniards in Americas had much the same attitude - the Latin American nations are now the result of assimilation and not of extermination of natives as it was in the old US.

I largely agree with your reply. One interesting fact that I want to bring up is that there was a significant drop in the native population of the New World after the arrival of the first explorers/conquistadors/colonists from the Old World. The germ pool of the Old World was too much for the people of the New World that had no acquaintance with malaria, influenza, tuberculosis, measles, scarlet fever, etc. In some places there were mortality rates as high as 90 percent. The survivors were devastated that their gods had not protected them, and to varying degrees assimilated into the culture of the Spanish and Portugese colonists.

The Spaniards were not aware that this was happening. On the other hand, Americans did give used blankets from tuberculosis clinics to Native Americans when they were removed to reservations in the 19th century.

Oh yes, it is also tragic that many of the Mayan codices were destroyed and with it much of the knowledge that they had acquired of astronomy. (Had to get something astronomical in here to pass the relevance test!)

Again, a fair reply, AgoraBasta.

[beskeptical]

I haven't had as much time to post so forgive the late replies.

On 2002-11-03 22:19, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
I put "Surely," before my comment, meaning that it was more of a reasonable conjecture, rather than the statement of fact that you make it out to be.

I see. Thank you for clarifying that.

On 2002-11-03 21:36, beskeptical wrote:
But it seemed he presented a less than convincing case that the reason for the distorted historical record was A CONSPIRACY [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]. It is possible the errors were purely innocent ignorance.

Grapes:

I'm not sure that there was any case made for a conspiracy. I do see where he speculated about the motives of those who propogated the myth, but I don't see any claim of a conspiracy.

From the link: Contortions that are common today, if not widely recognized, are produced by the incessant attacks on Christianity and religion in general by secular writers during the past century and a half, attacks that are largely responsible for the academic and journalistic sneers at Christianity today.

A curious example of this mistreatment of the past for the purpose of slandering Christians is a widespread historical error, an error that the Historical Society of Britain some years back listed as number one in its short compendium of the ten most common historical illusions. It is the notion that people used to believe that the earth was flat--especially medieval Christians.

Sure sounds like a conspiracy of 'secular writers' to 'incessantly attack Christians' to me. Especially with the reference to it occurring over 'the past century and a half'. Seems we have differing views of what constitutes a conspiracy.

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-11-09 00:29, beskeptical wrote:
Sure sounds like a conspiracy of 'secular writers' to 'incessantly attack Christians' to me. Especially with the reference to it occurring over 'the past century and a half'. Seems we have differing views of what constitutes a conspiracy.

I guess that's so! Here's the first one from the Ame.Her.Dic.: con·spir·a·cy n. 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act, and the others aren't far off from that.

Would you say that journalism writers today have a conspiracy to report science news wrongly, or do you attribute that to individual ignorance or sloppiness? I tend to go with the latter.

[ljbrs]

Great book!

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-11-13 21:35 ]</font>

[JS Princeton]

Economienda, Agora. Civilized? Not barbaric? Maybe only in comparison.