Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Christopher Columbus may have been Spanish and Jewish, documentary says

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 363 posts

Re: Christopher Columbus may have been Spanish and Jewish, documentary says

#341

Post by cafard »

javajosh wrote: post #284
lazyeye wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes its interesting reading all the people in this thread trying to align historical facts with contemporary ideological requirements...

But it is always legitimate to wonder about where the culture's attention is cast, and why. The present always holds great sway on how we perceive the past. Consider the example of Karl Marx, who's ideology fed his historical narrative, and vice-versa. I don't think it's coincidence that we never heard of Columbus' villainy prior to ~2005 and we never heard of his Jewishness until 2024.

If you look at Samuel Eliot Morison's writings about Columbus, you will see that a lot of people made a lot of claims about Columbus's origins.

You will also find that a lot of people had their reservations about his treatment of the people he found.

Re: Christopher Columbus may have been Spanish and Jewish, documentary says

#342

Post by dumbo-octopus »

danans wrote: post #339
dumbo-octopus wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re the only one here fascinated with this haplotype. Which is odd, considering you yourself call it inconsequential. Nobody but you has equated it with anything, and you have specifically said it does not equate to anything. So all in all this is just a textbook strawman, which I have no interest in further considering.

> You’re the only one here fascinated with this haplotype. Which is odd, considering you yourself call it inconsequential. Then substitute it with haplotype G or E1b, or include all of them. Or swap out both the haplotype and the cultural group for different ones, i.e Y Haplogroup R1b among people from Iceland. The particular haplotype is irrelevant to the argument, which is that genes don't define cultural identity,…

Again, you’re letting your machines decide what information exists, rather than accepting they might not have the capability of deciphering all that is out there.

Re: Christopher Columbus may have been Spanish and Jewish, documentary says

#343

Post by shsbdksn »

WorkerBee28474 wrote: post #292
netdevnet wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, I have never heard of that. Which is funny because Catholicism is far older than Protestantism

They were one and the same until some people protested against the Catholic church telling people they could buy their way into Heaven - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-five_Theses

The sale of indulgences didn't work quite like that. The Catholic Church, like the Orthodox, has free confession which is the stairway to heaven.

The sale of indulgences was a charitable donation done to mitigate the penalties of Purgatory.

Abuses were committed, but the telling of the protestants is quite fantastic. It was not, for example, a get-of-Hell sale

Re: Christopher Columbus may have been Spanish and Jewish, documentary says

#344

Post by aguaviva »

grumple wrote: post #275
pvaldes wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is not such thing as "Jewish" DNA. Is a culture and religion, but not a fully different race. Some genes could be in the past more represented, but it was just "Mediterranean dotation". A mix of European, African and Asian. Today is much more mixed fortunately.

You are wrong on this point. Genetically, Jews are as distinct as any other race (and the world's obsession with Jews mean that you can find plenty of studies on Jewish genetics). Jews take DNA tests and get marked as "Ashekanzi Jewish" (or other Jewish type) on tests like 23andme.

Genetically, Jews are as distinct as any other race.

By what measure? And how is "race" defined?

Re: Christopher Columbus may have been Spanish and Jewish, documentary says

#345

Post by netdevnet »

aksss wrote: post #306
Tainnor wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and they weren't "Frenchmen".

Even when there was a nominal French kingdom, substantial "state" intervention was required to form a cohesive cultural identity, ironing out dramatic regional linguistic differences, systems of measurement, etc. Definitely a "beat it fit, paint it to match" kind of situation. Still, it's fun to imagine that if you time-machined back to a gallic region in the ice age, you'd come across a guy who'd strike you as remar…

So supressing the cultural diversity of the region? Bretons are/were likely unhappy

Re: Christopher Columbus may have been Spanish and Jewish, documentary says

#346

Post by netdevnet »

shsbdksn wrote: post #310
netdevnet wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off-topic but why do people keep referring to Catholic Christians as Catholics as opposed to just Christians? I noticed that a lot in anglo-saxon spheres. It seems to function as an othering technique. I wonder if you are aware of you doing it. Other groups don't seem to get that kind of categorisation (just look at this thread)

To emphasis that we, like the Orthodox, Copts, Syriacs, etc. have apostolic succession while the protestants do not.

Surely you can just say something like apostolic Christians or something but I find it odd that for individuals whose core belief is a figure called Christ that they wouldn't use the original term "Christian" to refer to themselves and instead keep breaking away from each and using new words for their group every time they don't agree with each other

Re: Christopher Columbus may have been Spanish and Jewish, documentary says

#347

Post by netdevnet »

WorkerBee28474 wrote: post #279
netdevnet wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off-topic but why do people keep referring to Catholic Christians as Catholics as opposed to just Christians? I noticed that a lot in anglo-saxon spheres. It seems to function as an othering technique. I wonder if you are aware of you doing it. Other groups don't seem to get that kind of categorisation (just look at this thread)

> Off-topic but why do people keep referring to Catholic Christians as Catholics as opposed to just Christians Mostly because it's a way to communicate such that the listener knows who you're talking about. Another example is calling Mormons 'Mormon' instead of Christian. If you say 'Christian' people will think of what is likely in that geographic area the most common type of Christian, probably some form of protest…

But why does it matter in a general context? It's like me referring to a group of people by the colour of their shoes or the material of the coats that they wear. It seems oddly segregational.

"Probably some kind protestant" surely, it would be Catholic as that's the largest denomination.

But my point is why you need to specify what kind of Christians are you talking about? Or why would you assume that you are talking about a subset of Christians only? Imagine talking about the weather in the western world in terms of city neighbourhoods. Sure, it helps knowing what specific area you are talking about but it seems oddly meticulous. I don't know if this is an anglo-saxon thing as I have seen Brits and North Americans talking in this way. But I haven't seen anyone from Germany, Italy or Spain talking in this way.

I suspect it might be a thing that people raised in non-Catholic countries say because in my experience, Catholics will see all Christians as Christians and not with some othering kind of word (see us-vs-them group dynamics in psychology). That othering emphasises the differences (often used by people that seek to distance themselves from them all despite the commonalities) while using the same word highlights the commonalities (often used by people that embraces them all despite the differences) I notice this non-Catholic pattern of us-vs-them othering in the context of Catalonia and Taiwan too so I suspect it might be an us-vs-them group dynamics thing.

Re: Christopher Columbus may have been Spanish and Jewish, documentary says

#348

Post by netdevnet »

Tainnor wrote: post #298
netdevnet wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off-topic but why do people keep referring to Catholic Christians as Catholics as opposed to just Christians? I noticed that a lot in anglo-saxon spheres. It seems to function as an othering technique. I wonder if you are aware of you doing it. Other groups don't seem to get that kind of categorisation (just look at this thread)

Saying "catholics" instead of "Christians" is about the same as saying "Visigoths" instead of "Germanic tribes". I don't know why you would resist more precision. In the context of the times, it stands in opposition to e.g. "Eastern orthodox" (after the Great schism) or "Aryan".

I understand that it is a more precise term but my point is why does that additional precision matters in this particular context? All that is relevant is that a big external force came to unify a bunch of tribes. Christian seems good enough. On the other hand, why stop at "Visigoths"? You could list the actual sub-groups too. You can do the same with "Catholics" too.

But we don't because additional precision is not always necessary and in a context of several sub-groups, you would seem to emphasise a difference between them (by referring to the sub-group name) rather than their common name (Christians).

It's just something that I notice a lot in anglo-saxon (see non-Catholics) contexts and almost never outside the anglosphere.

Re: Christopher Columbus may have been Spanish and Jewish, documentary says

#349

Post by netdevnet »

aksss wrote: post #295
netdevnet wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> brought humanity together again This is such a culturally insensitive thing to say. And very ironic considering all the Americans that died during that "bringing humanity together" period and all the segregation imposed by the invaders that has been in place until not that many decades ago

What do you consider ironic about two groups of long-isolated (from each other) humans making contact and there being conflict? There are no similar events at this scale to compare to (what is your context for irony?). Looking at the smaller-scale examples, the presence of conflict seems entirely consistent, and hardly ironic. I’m guessing you’re reading “brought together” as some sort of idiom for happiness and mutu…

I considered ironic that the user used a positive expression "humanity coming together" for what was one of the most destructive invasions in human history. I suggest you ask any native to America what they think about that term?

"humanity coming together" is definitely a positive expression. The cambridge dictionary says "to help people or groups to become friendly or to do something together, especially when they would not usually do this".

And if you look at the user's text the act of "bringing people together" is framed as something morally good/worthy. In this context, our explorer faced many challenges but achieved something good (i.e. bringing people together).

Imagine if we used that term for other horrifying events in history where a group of people unalived a country's worth of another group of people

Re: Christopher Columbus may have been Spanish and Jewish, documentary says

#350

Post by netdevnet »

mightyham wrote: post #283
netdevnet wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't acknowledge continent-scale cultural and human destruction by calling it "injustice" or "inevitable awful consequence". Do you imagine someone saying that about the current situation in Crimea? Millions of people died. It is not just an "injustice". An injustice is a state official forging evidence for nefarious purposes not destroying a country and unaliving its people let alone a whole continent. It reall…

First off, it is factually correct to say 1) Columbus' expeditions connected (for better or worse) groups of people that never had had contact before and 2) the Native Americans specifically killed by disease (which was roughly 80 to 90% of the population) was an inevitable result of travel and trade with the Americas. You can use whatever moralizing language or comparisons to modern day conflicts you want to analyze…

1. User said "bringing together" which has different connotations to "connect". One is positive (and culturally insensitive) and the second one is neutral (and more correct). If you want to be descriptive, be neutral at the very least, but you can't expect to introduce moral viewpoints on historical events and not expected to be challenged on the ethics of those viewpoints. Because the event is in the past but your opinion is in the present and that opinion is what is being challenged here not the actual event.

2. You are purposely ignoring that: A) lots of them were unalived by the invaders and this has been going on on a more quieter manner until about 40-30 years ago which is not that long ago B)Columbus himself had to be arrested because even his resource-loving managers were horrified of the things he did there C) whole nations, tribes and cultures were wiped by the invaders D) the remaining natives in the northern bits lost of most of their lands and autonomy

None of this can be considered to be an inevitable result of trade. You can trade with a country without doing any of the above as can be seen by all the other countries that engaged in trade at that time. There is a moral element to all this that you are accidentally or purposefully ignoring. There is no need to compare it to any modern day conflict because even by today standards it was really evil and not all "inevitable".

Post reply on HN