[Theoden]

The problem is that these actions and events cannot be proven, witnesses can't be taken as reliable sources, and is one-sided. No one will be able to prove what had actually took place accurately, and should therefore the Columbus that we know should be given the benefit of doubt.

Again, it does not matter whether Columbus did or did not discover America, what matters is what people perceive. I am sick of seeing everything I have been taught to be right and to believe in as good and to be proud of, being chipped away at by all of these modern sudo-historians. I especially take offense when it is American history being attacked.

As for social norm, it should be seen in the light of what behavior is condoned at the specific time of the actions taking place, by the greatest amount of people at that specific time. It is hard to explain, almost like being utilitarian. Terrorism in our time is not condoned, but slavery and murder of non-Christians at that time period was, unfortunately.

[Dr._Joseph_Warren]

I don't consider the Columbus story to be "American" history. This is European-Caribean history. That may be pettifogging, but that's just how I feel. In my mind, "American" history did not start for another ~200 years with the first successful colony in New England.

I agree that it does not matter whether Columbus did or did not discover America. It also does not matter what people perceive. What matters is the truth as best it can be determined.

I fail to understand how you can say that 'witnesses can't be taken as reliable sources'. This would suggest that we cannot rely on any history. Although we can't always decipher the emotions and intent of historical figures, we do have fairly good evidence on their actions.

It has been fairly well proven that Leif Erickson was in North America long before Columbus. It is also accepted as fact that colonization and exploitation (not intended as a negative) did not begin until after Columbus rediscovered and promoted the New World.

What is condoned at a specific time by the greatest amount of people at that specific time, although certainly a consideration, is not a valid basis for judging the character of people living in that time. We honor the Christian martyrs of the Roman period not because they went with the norm, but because they gave their lives instead of going with the norm.

Would you not condemn the crucifixion of Jesus, even though that was condoned behavior accepted by the majority of people at that time.

I'm have no goal of tearing down Columbus. He was brave and succeeded in his mission where many, many before him had failed. But as we celebrate his success, we would do well to also reflect on his shortcomings and the shortcomings of his era.