Should we call the event that took place in October 12, 1492 a "Discovery", or a "Meeting of two Worlds?

Question

I understand that winners write history, but it should be objective and not biased. History is written through the eyes and worldview of the a Historian. I am not a revisionist. History does not change; our values change with time, so I think is time to rethink the way we describe when these two cultures met for the first time. I know that the Vikings were the first ones, but it was not significant, because nothing significant happened after that.

Answer 1

I call it the failure of our illegal alien policy at its height....

Answer 2

I would call it a prelude to genocide. The first European colony in America was established in Haiti and it was christened La Navidad. Columbus left a few men there as he returned to Spain. The Spanish attempted to enslave the population and were eventually massacred. So they came back with guns and committed the most dramatic act of genocide in the history of humanity.

edit: Lipsiot is wrong. Historians are always struggling to find accurate ways to define history. The terms discovery or boston tea party were not given by the participants and are therefore interpretations on the part of the historians using those names. A name reveals the understanding a person has of an event, whether they condone or condemn it.
This obsession with what is politically correct or not eclipses the fact that we retain many nomenclature inherited from politicized world views we would do better without. I may be alone here but i prefer to call things by names that do not reflect the views of the savage murderers who gave birth to New World civilization through rape, theft and murder.

Just as Sugar Ray and Muhhamad Ali and Malcolm X. Discovery is America's slave name.

Answer 3

It was a discovery of the new world. They didn't discover Columbus, there was no meeting half-way between europe and the americas, the risk was taken solely by the europeans so they discovered the americas. Another thing, I am a westerner so why would I try to rewrite history from the eyes of those who are not?
You're not talking about facts here, but about emotive terms so I chose to stick with those terms that my ancestors and their brethren overseas have passed down to me. Obviously the facts should be recorded as carefully as possible.

Answer 4

I don't think it makes a great deal of difference. It is only in our "western" history that it is treated as "discovery". In native histories, I have no doubt it would be treated somewhat differently.

Another good analogy are the Maori in New Zealand who believe that they have only "loaned" the land to the British "discoverers" and it will be returned to them in the future - I wish I could believe they are right.

No - as with the slave trade - apologising or being politically correct by re-naming an event makes not a jot of difference other than to make western apologists feel a little better about their ancestors.

Answer 5

I like your second title better. Discovery suggests nobody was there. Imagine if Native Americans carried some disease that was fatal to Europeans - how the world might have changed.

Answer 6

Sorry about butting in here as a Believer of Christ Jesus, but I prefer to share with others the ways in which God is working in my life. The blessings and the adversities I meet, keep me cleansed in His spirit. Folks respond more to positives at the onset of receiving Christ as their personal savior, than they do to hellfire, though I admire your knowledge and enthusiasm for Christ.