Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Explorers 'Discovered America'?

FLY9999 writes: "According to British historian and map expert Gavin Menzies, Chinese explorers discovered America way before Columbus did. He will disclose his information to the prestigious Royal Geographical Society (RGS) at a conference next week."

716 comments

  1. Erm, great. by autopr0n · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hope this doesn't mean that they are going to claim us as a "renegade state" now...

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Troll

      America is not a renegade state. It is part of China
      since ts discovery. America will be joined to
      its Chinese homeland after the problem of Taiwan
      province is solved.

      Kubus

    2. Re:Erm, great. by cmdr_beeftaco · · Score: 1, Troll

      This does explain why there are so many Chinese Restaurants in my neighborhood.

    3. Re:Erm, great. by jmccay · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right! They would even try. They can't get back Taiwan without our telling them to knock it off. They don't have the capability of a long term invasion of the USA, so they can say it all they want.

      Seriously, I remember seeing a show where the found Asian skeletal remainsin the continental United States, but I don't remember what date the remain are supposed to be from.

      Is this earlier than the Vickings? I don't think they were the earliest. I think Egypt (the tombs of the Pharaohs have been found to contain tobacco (only grown natively in the Americas), and I think it was on the Mummies. There is alos an older map from another civilization that has a map with a continent that looks like south America, and a lot of Atlantean people (people who believe in Atlantis) believe this is Atlantis, but I think it looks more like South America (or it could be both {based on a PBS show}).

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    4. Re:Erm, great. by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. China DOES hav the capability of invading the US and actually succeeding if they did it correctly. They have a population of OVER 1 billion people. I don't think the US has a pop of over 50 million. We are so outnumbered in sheer numbers it's not even funny. There can only be so much said for superior tactics and weaponry.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    5. Re:Erm, great. by CoyoteGuy · · Score: 1

      Don't be so ignorant. Without those restaurants, cats would be running around rampant.

      --
      Slashdot.. Land of nerds, trolls, and FlameBait..
    6. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somewhat offtopic, but I would like to request the moderation option "Moronic -2".

    7. Re:Erm, great. by The+Troll+Catcher · · Score: 1

      50 million? Are you smoking crack?

      Last I checked, the US population was between 250 and 300 mil. That's not really so bad, considering we would have home-field advantage and our military would kick their butts technologically.

    8. Re:Erm, great. by nat5an · · Score: 1

      Um.. I believe the population of the US is approximately 260 Million.

      --
      Head down, go to sleep to the rhythm of the war drums...
    9. Re:Erm, great. by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 2

      How correct you are.

      Not only do they have the poeple, they also have the willingness to die if ordered to do so.

      What would an American do if ordered to march into an enemy homeland and surely die? Well, some would go, sure, but most of us would just change the TV channel, radio station, or subscribe to a different magazine.

      About the only thing going in our favor is that in a land-invasion of that type, we'd have the natural advantage of having armed citizens, police, and an advanced military. Question is though, is that enough?

      (Incidently, there are a bunch of people that want to take away your guns, and the UN fully supports this communistic bullshit point of view. The first time someone tries to take away my gun they're getting shot. Killed until dead. Repeatedly.)

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    10. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dumbass...

      you're assuming the use of merely conventional weapons. VERY Stupid assumption. Even if nuclear weapons were not used, you're still forgetting that the number of people is irrelevant. The size, strength, and technological level of the military is what matters. Emphasis on the last part. Look at the 10 year Iran-Iraq war. Iran had a MUCH larger army, and Iraq had better technology. Iraq kept Iran at at bay for a decade. Iran kept it's head above water by clearing minefields with young recruits. (Paradise is on the other side of that minefield).

    11. Re:Erm, great. by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Okay, so I was off on US Population, must of been thinking about NYC. :-P

      Still, you understand that we are still outnumbered by more then 10 to 1. In todays high tech warfare, thats certain death for those outnumbered. Militaries no longer have the same equipment (e.g. swords, shields and spears). We now have different varieties of rifles, machine guns, pistols, armor, armored units (such as tanks and apc's and what not), naval warfare. The playing field stopped being level when the Industrial Revolution hit. Granted we have the most high tech military in the world, but even homefield advantage doesn't win the home team the day. When it comes down to it, we haven't been able to fight a guerilla war since our OWN Civil War (just look at Korea nad Vietnam, we got our asses kicked from here to hell and back, not to mention they were getting help from China).

      If China were to invade, we'd lose. Plain and simple.

      And yes, if the U N tries to take away my guns, I'll shoot them until they are dead, bring them back to life, kill them again, repeat process.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    12. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      moron... China wouldn't survive an attempt to invade the US. (The US probably wouldn't survive China's death throes, but that's a different question).

      Any serious attempt to invade the United States would be met with full conventional retaliation. If that failed to repel the invader, a full nuclear response would begin. No nation on earth could survive a nuclear attack by the United States. Even IF China managed to complete the invasion before the US leadership knew what was happening, (extremely unlikely), there's still those nuclear submarines out there that each carry the power to turn a nation the size of China into glass.

      Korea and Vietnam were different questions. The US was trying to invade another country. Not defend itself from invasion. (That's a LOT harder to do). Please note that I'm not claiming that the US could successfully invade China...

    13. Re:Erm, great. by balthan · · Score: 1

      You forget one thing: They have to get to America if they wish to invade it. Superior numbers aren't much of an advantage when crammed into naval transports, which would be a nice target for our superior navy and air force.

    14. Re:Erm, great. by susano_otter · · Score: 2

      Okay, but how are all these Chinese invaders supposed to get here?

      Boats? Great! Where are all the boats coming from? And how are they supposed to keep the invasion secret? Any attempt to ship an invasion force across the Pacific is doomed.

      And even if they do manage to get some percentage of their troops on shore in California (or Oregon, or Mexico, or Canada, or wherever), then what? They're promptly going to overrun the entire U.S.? Highly doubtful, with every Police force, National Guard unit, and gun-toting militia in the way. Even if they transplanted their entire population (armed and combat-ready, of course), they'd still be spread pretty thin across North America.

      North America? Sure! You think Canada's going to sit back and watch?

      And let's not forget that if China did transplant even a significant percentage of its Army (let alone its entire population as a militia force), Russia, Korea, and possibly Japan would promptly move in on the defenseless nation. Your troops may be willing to die, but their leaders are probably not interested in trading their homeland for a hostile environment thousads of miles away.

      Describing the obvious problems involved in staging the invasion from Alaska are left as an exercise to the reader (Hint: they're mostly the same problems as the seaborne invasion scenario).

      And all this is without even discussing in detail how thoroughly well-equipped the U.S. Navy (as well as most other navies in the world) is to deal with a massive flotilla of converted freighters full of Chinese militia-men.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    15. Re:Erm, great. by jmccay · · Score: 2

      I have to correct you on that statement. Last I checked, they had about 1/4 of the Earth's population, but that doesn't matter in this case. China doesn't have the means to get all those people over here to the US. The size in population only matters when the two countries are connected via land or if the country with the larger population could get those people of accross the sea to the United States. China can't do either of those, and let's not forget Japan beat China in WWII. Japan had a lot less troups than China, and Japan killed the Chinese navy. Japan also invaded a lot of South-East Asia. Size doesn't always matter! Size would matter if the US was trying to invade China, but that won't happen.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    16. Re:Erm, great. by Quikah · · Score: 1, Troll

      We did not get our asses kicked in Vietnam. We were kicking there asses pretty handily when the US populace just got sick of it since they didn't see a point to it. Just look at the numbers. 1.1 mil NVA/VC dead versus 50,000 US dead.

      I think you underestimate the tenacity of the American civilian. There is no way in hell China could invade us anyway (nightmarish logistics) unless they used nukes (or got some alien teleporting technology), and well if that happened there would be a couple Billion or so less people in the world in about an hour or 2.

      --
      Q.
    17. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great Target practice to inprove our aim after all those years (8) of having the coward Democract in the President's office.

    18. Re:Erm, great. by Cyno · · Score: 1


      So what you're saying is you think China would attack the US if they suddenly found the secret to Superstrings and designed and built a worm hole generator or space-folding machine that could offer them immediate transportation to anyplace in our little 4 dimensional universe? And the Vietnam war shouldn't have been stopped because we would have won? Who wins a War? Doesn't anyone care about peace and prosperity? Instantaneous transportation would solve all the distribution problems anyone has on earth as well as the space program's problems getting to other planets, galaxies, etc. I bet we could solve superstrings and design the hardware before we could ever travel across our galaxy physically, even if we launched today. But what I fear is that there are many more people like you who would horde that kind of technology and use it to eliminate part of the human race. For what gain? Money?!?!

    19. Re:Erm, great. by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 2
      What would an American do if ordered to march into an enemy homeland and surely die? Well, some would go, sure, but most of us would just change the TV channel, radio station, or subscribe to a different magazine.

      I think you're underestimating the response of the American public. I'd agree that under normal circumstances, it's pretty self-occupied and doesn't like external disturbances. Once it has been aroused & its attention focused on a particular national task, the American culture has a (sometimes disturbing) potential and the natural resources to do _anything_ to get the job done, and they're willing to sacrifice a _lot_ (both their own sacrifice & causing sacrifice of others) to reach the goal.

      I don't think there is a country on the planet that could seriously consider attacking the US "directly" and expect to survive. Repelling a land-invasion on US soil would only be the first step in US response; once the enemy forces were "removed", it would be the single-minded focus of the entire country to eliminate that the possibility that the enemy could ever do it again.

    20. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vikings, not Vickings, and yes, the Viking settlements in North America are earlier than these alleged Chinese travels.

    21. Re:Erm, great. by nobody69 · · Score: 1

      If China were to invade, they'd collapse the PRC. Plain and simple.

      Your statement that the Industrial Revolution un-levelled the playing field is exactly right, but it made small differences in tech even more significant. The US has a huge tech advantage and not just in tanks, planes, ships, and subs (I assume that you don't think that the PRC can equal M1 tanks and Nimitz class aircraft carriers), but in technical intelligence gathering, communications and logistics.

      Launching a trans-Pacific amphibious invasion is not something that can be done without satellites noticing, so there is no way that the Chinese have the element of surprise. As the invasion fleet moves, taking the best equipment and personnel in the Chinese military with them, the US could attack the fleet directly with carrier battle groups and nuclear attack subs, and hit the mainland with strategic bombers, attack subs launching cruise missles, and possibly additional carrier battle groups, depending onb where they all are, etc. Meanwhile, US ballistic missle carrying subs would be moving into position to strike mainland China. Chinese communications would be intercepted routinely and the codes would be cracked quickly, so there would be little to no tactical surprise. Of course the fact that there is several thousand miles of ocean to be crossed would be a great hindrance to the Chinese, since they lack a chain of bases across the Pacific to be used for resupply and don't have significant nuclear-propelled warships. IOW, they can run out of gas. Sure, they can bring oilers with them, but they'll slow the whole fleet down and will be prime targets for subs and planes. The Chinese would be doing good to get any ships across to the US coast.

      Even if we totally handwave the transit away, and several million members of the Chinese army show up on the West Coast one fine morning, tehy'll be crushed on the beach. How? Air superiority. The Chinese don't have big aircraft carriers or combat planes that can reach the US, so all their troops will completely open to attack from the air. The biggest problem for the US will be coordinating the attacks by the Air Force fighter, bomber, and attack planes, with the Navy's fighter and attack aircraft, the Marine's Harriers and attack helicopters and the Army's attack helicopters. Obviously, the extent of the response will vary depending on where the invasion occurs, but major cities tend to have military and naval bases associated with them. Plus, ground forces will respond, be they Army, Marine or National Guard. The American forces will have much better supply (mainly becuase the Chinese won't have any) and will be fighting in familiar territory, with a supportive populace (one would hope:) that they can communicate with. The Chinese will be in a country where they cannot read the roadsigns, have never travelled, with hostile natives, and very tight and dwindling supplies. Relying on numbers in this situation is an active disadvantage.

      Before you say "Paratroops and air-dropped supplies", you should review my air superiority comments above and remember that we've got lots of radars looking across the Pacific Ocean, so there would be no surprise. Also, large successful airdrops (that aren't part of a larger amphibious operation) are few and far between, historicly speaking.
      So, how does this destroy the PRC? Well, they have sent the best parts of their military across an ocean, leaving the not so hot parts to defend themselves against their neighbors. If you were in charge of a former Soviet republic with some claim to territory that the PRC owns, would you make a move? Especially since you could probably get support from the US for doing so? Add in that these forces are destroyed, and the Chinese mainland is being bombed and cruise-missled regularly and does that change your response? Plus, if the PRC government has just launched a fruitless and bloody attack, do dissident groups begin to get a little fiesty? What are the chances of an internal power grab by party members that kicks the current leaders out? What does the EU do? How about Russia? Economic sanctions? Attack in support? No matter what combination of these events occurs, it's bad for the current gov.

      Personally, I'm more concerned about the Michigan Militia that about the Chinese. Of course, I live in the Midwest...

      --
      "Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
    22. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is always been part of China. Why are people so confused about this.

    23. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes a special kind of genius to be so stupid.

    24. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, but how are all these Chinese invaders supposed to get here?

      You are correct that boats would not do it. Clearly the only solution is a tunnel under the Pacific. It might sound impossible, but you have a billion people taking turns, that's just a few hours of digging per person. Plus there's all those islands in the Pacific, so you could come up for air every now and then.

    25. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell are you talking about??

    26. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone else here think cats need another 8000 years of domestication before they are as tasty as the dog?

    27. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your an idiot, and you watch war movies on the History Channel way too much.

      HOW many countries would like to see USA get assfucked (if you say none, your the dumbest fucking redneck in the world). This would not be a 1v1 battle. Some countries would join China, some would alliance themselves with USA, shits gonna hit the fan, everyone's going nuclear, and all future generations of the human race will have extra arms and legs, inverted sex organs and plants growing on their asses.

      And please, no one make any references to Vietnam, 80% of the bodycount was villagers/women/children toting dangerous looking sticks and doing something called farming.

    28. Re:Erm, great. by cornjones · · Score: 1

      you aren't really taking the previous post in context. the thread has become "could china do it". not "will china do it". he was just pointing out the incredible logistical task of getting the troops here makes it impossible. The introduction of some sort of teleportation tech would solve that and let china take advantage of it's numbers.

      i don't know much about superstrings and the prevelant theories on how we will be able to get from point A to point B w/ out traveling through each and every point in between. Your point is well taken that you could potentially solve all sorts of distribution problems. assuming the cost was low. assuming there was no patent issues. assuming that we didn't just use it as an assassination tool. assuming it wasn't just used to break into vaults. assuming we distributed across the world. assuming we didn't piss off some other race by dropping into a religious ceremony on another world and bring about a huge retaliation. assuming we were not humans but some other largely benevolent race.....

    29. Re:Erm, great. by baka_boy · · Score: 2

      We're not talking about some pithy little 3rd-world nation like Afganistan, here; IIRC, China has the largest standing army in the world, and while I don't think there's any real chance that they would march on the North American continent, it wouldn't be the kind of one-sided battle that the US fights these days.

      I mean, c'mon! In the last set of raids in Afganistan, *eight* US soldiers died, compared to several hundred Taliban/Al Quaida/"whatever poor bastards happened to be non-American, and in the area" casualties. That isn't a war, it's a massacre. Yes, our soldiers may be "brave fighting men," but they're also immensely better-equipped and nourished, and being constantly resupplied by the rich motherland.

    30. Re:Erm, great. by baka_boy · · Score: 2

      Personally, I think that it would make more sense for a coalition of Native American tribes to put the federal government on trial for war crimes, and then kick our sorry asses out. It would make a hell of a lot more sense than any continued bickering by would-be invaders over who "discovered" the continent, considering that it had been quite obviously occupied for some time.

    31. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um us US has a population of 278,058,881 last time I checked!

    32. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      War crimes?

      War is not a crime, its specific actions during a war that constitute a war crime.

      Maybe we should all just go back to where we were 200 years ago, or maybe 500, perhaps 1500, 10000, 200,000?

      People have been moving around for years, and whether due to direct invasion, or slow encroachment, lands that used to belong to one group no longer due. Compare Europe with it 1500 year ago.

      What really happened is that we came over and instead of invading, just dominated.

      But as far as rights to the land, the natives have as much right to it as the druids have to the British isles.

    33. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother digging under all that surface area? All they'd need to do is dig a hole straight down! Then there's that small problem of heat and pressure, but, um, they're smart. They could find a way to deal with it.

      I was thinking the best method of invasion would be to fill in the Bering Strait.

    34. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For what gain? Money?!?!


      I was thinking power and sex, but money would be alright too.
    35. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, this is making me all jittery, I feel like I'm reading Tom Clancy.

    36. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there were a war with China on US soil, the US would win, but what worries me is what would happen to any Asian-looking American. If we're depending on gun-toting rednecks to keep our country safe, are we going to trust them to kill only the invading Chinese and not Chinese-Americans? Or Japanese, Korean, Indonesian, etc. Americans for that matter.

    37. Re:Erm, great. by AnalogBoy · · Score: 2

      A white man once asked a native american what they called america before europeans took it over.

      "Ours".

      I don't have as much native american in me as I would like to have. The last person in my family who isn't pasty-white is my maternal grandfather, but he's certainly not red. There's some european influence on his side. And my fathers family is totally white bread.

      With that said, i really and truly admire the native ways. Sometimes, the simplicity and style of their lives really appeals to me, their respect for the earth and, in most cases, the lives of others. While our great, great, great, great, great, great grandfathers were taking over the place, we should have taken the time to learn a little bit about the "savage natives".

      grr.

    38. Re:Erm, great. by AnalogBoy · · Score: 2

      I agree with you.

      I just don't think we'd let them get over here. It's hard for me to envision a land battle on US Soil, unless its a civil war, which is just as unlikely.

    39. Re:Erm, great. by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2
      Native American is a miserable and stupid turn of phrase. I am a native American (in both meanings): I was born here; also, I am descended from Pocahontas. The proper term is aborigine. And, quite honestly, I don't have overmuch sympathy for their point of view. Granted, we treated them horribly in the 19th century, and we should do our best do remedy the harm we did. But OTOH the aborigines didn't do diddly-squat for this hemisphere when they had control. Heck, they were still practicing human sacrifice when we arrived!

      Look at what the aborigines achieved with this continent. Then compare it to the United States, Canada and Mexico. They were truly savages, living off of the land, dirty, filthy, disease-ridden, pitiable. We have brought civilisation and order, science and reason. We have raised them from savages to citizens. We've also done an awful and shameful deal of nastinesses to them. And we should make reparations therefor. But no-one can forget the fact that without the Europeans the aboriginal inhabitants would still be living hand-to-mouth and running in fear from one another.

      It's not an issue of black-and-white, of the noble savage versus the evil European. It's a matter of human beings who have mutually improved one another, and committed their share of evil along the way (look into the aboriginal treatment of captives, women and children sometime, along with the atrocities committed by the civilised).

      In a trial on war crimes, the gov't of the United States could bring as much evidence against the aboriginals as the aboriginals could bring against the gov't. Neither side is pure, and neither side's hands are clean. The sole real difference is that we at least paid lip service to certain values--and the aboriginals did not.

    40. Re:Erm, great. by ahfoo · · Score: 1

      But. . .
      These comments about Native Americans -including that found in the 'from the dept of' line-- since they came from Asia as well. They may not have been Han Chinese, but that's a mythological identity anyway much in the vein of Aryan European.
      And the mummies with tobacco, chocolate and cocaine thing fits right in with all this Chinese in America stuff rather than refutring it. Obviously, the Chinese were running trans-Pacific trade in these exquisite goods thousands of years before Christ and probably into the European Dark Ages .
      So what does it all mean? China should be returned the exclusive distributorship of Central/South American cocaine within the guidelines of the WTO! There's historical precedent. In order to keep things even, Middle Eastern and North American countries will be allowed to return to hemp cultivation. Berkley will be allowed to redevelop its former LSD monopoly and Japan will be given back the global rights to methamphetamine.

    41. Re:Erm, great. by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      I don't have as much native american in me as I would like to have.

      Why? Genetics is meaningless. You can't be of lesser or greater worth because of your genetic makeup. To say otherwise would be racist.

    42. Re:Erm, great. by Deflatamouse! · · Score: 1

      FYI, Japan beat China only because China was in a great civil war itself, and was divided into the Nationalist and the Communist. In the end, they combined (Chiang Kai-Shek was kidnapped and forced to use his army to fight Japan) to defeat Japan before going back to their civil war.

    43. Re:Erm, great. by Talkischeap · · Score: 1

      Heh... y'all may joke about cats in Chinese food, but in the heart of SillyCon Valley the Tao Tao Cafe on Murphy St. in Sunnyvale CA, was closed down at least three times over the years for serving CAT .

      I hope you won't think this is too catty, but man... was their food ever good .

      BURRRRRP .

      --
      If it don't GO... chrome it. ~ Frank Banks
    44. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have to. A few cities bombed and the US would surrender in a week. Have you seen the average american lately? They are afraid to go downtown at night alone w/o a car in their nearest city. Let's see them take on a nation with nuclear weapons, 5x the population and all ready much more used to harsh conditions on their own ground. Lose the car, move to a ghetto, now imagine things being 10x worse, That's what a war with China would be like if it were fought on our soil. Kind of gives one pause when one thinks about whether we should bomb people who are so poor they don't even have sweat shops to work in. It's pathetic.

    45. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Look at what the aborigines achieved with this continent. Then compare it to the United States,
      Canada and Mexico."

      So if I can do more with your land (put a factory in your front yard where the trees used to grow) then I can infect you w/ a disease, rape your family, and take your house. You have strange logic. But ok, post your real addy.

    46. Re:Erm, great. by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Okay, so there are logistical problems involved, but if it was just China vs. USA, and China managed to train it's whole citizenry as militiamen (for homeland defense), I still think they could very well do it.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    47. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you've discovered the exciting world of the Bold HTML tag. Enjoy.

    48. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have as much native american in me as I would like to have.
      heh. Dumbass.

    49. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >invasion secret? Any attempt to ship an
      >invasion force across the Pacific is doomed.
      They can never hope go get enough visas for all those people!

      And this whole invasion thing is not the issue here; let's talk acheology instead!

    50. Re:Erm, great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only is that comment racist, it's also wrong... Japanese are supposed to be like that, not chinese, who have a reputation of great inventors.
      Bigot, and stupid =/

    51. Re:Erm, great. by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      After talking and reading the responses, yeah, okay, it would be a logistical nightmare, but it's still a very good possibility.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    52. Re:Erm, great. by Cyno · · Score: 1

      assuming we were not humans but some other largely benevolent race.....

      Yeah, I see your point. But some of us I think want to help, or else we wouldn't have open source software. Let's just hope its the GNU guys that discover that dimensional portal thingy. Now how do you get a programmer to solve physics problems... hrmmmm... I seriously doubt the human race is intelligent enough to master the mathematics required to successfully and acurately travel by folding space, much less prove the theories behind it or design any functional equipment. But they did make a nuke... so there is potential. I don't know a lot about the theories behind superstrings, but from what I've heard that math is far beyond calculus, or at least calculus in 11 and 24 dimensions, or something like that. It sounded hard, heard about Physicists forgetting where they lived after working on the problems overnight. But I think its very similar to nuclear physics or electromagnetics. In fact superstrings was originally called The Theory of Everything, or the big T.O.E. It was Einsteins last theory, trying to unite the 4 forces of nature, electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear, and gravity. If understood thoroughly it could do for space-folding what the theory of relativity did for our nuclear capability. Imagine for instance a caveman discovers a magnetic rock and finds that by moving this rock a certain direction near a wire, he happened to find on the ground, he gets shocked by the electrons the moving mangetic field caused to move in the wire. Then he puts on rubber gloves, charges up the wire and runs around shocking all his cavefriends. Similarly, I bet learning how to use superstrings is a lot easier than solving/proving the equation.

    53. Re:Erm, great. by Hidden+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are quite right! China will definitely beat Japan and any other country in the world if there was a World War III. Chinese Army harnessed very advanced technology and trained a lot of intelligent commanders in the last 50 years since the WW II. Now we've got the most powerful long-range nuclear missile, nuclear-powered submarine, JIAN-8 III Fighter Planes which is as good as USSR's Su-27 and you American F-22, and last but not the least, the bravest soldiers in the world! We are the best!

    54. Re:Erm, great. by thelizman · · Score: 1

      And precisely how are they going to get their 1 billion invaders over here, dub-mass?

    55. Re:Erm, great. by thelizman · · Score: 1

      "Bang bang bang...three in the head, you know they're dead"
      --Morgan Freeman, Nurse Betty

      Personally, I would'nt shoot anyone trying to take my guns - they guns they find they can have. Then, if I can't petition, vote, or sue my way to a remedy, I'll dig up the rest and then it's VIVA LA REVOLUCION! All the Tequila for me and my homies.

  2. Does this mean. . . by jchawk · · Score: 2, Funny

    All your Americas are belong to Chinese?

    1. Re:Does this mean. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it doesn't, you fucking idiot.

  3. wouldn't surprise me in the least by denny_d · · Score: 2, Funny

    The greatest Chinese Navigator,Cheng Ho, rocked China's boat so much, they closed the ports...
    dgd

    1. Re:wouldn't surprise me in the least by leviramsey · · Score: 1
      The greatest Chinese Navigator,Cheng Ho, rocked China's boat so much, they closed the ports...

      The Chinese have historically tended to have an insular society. This is, after all, the nation that spent years (and lots of energy) on a Great Wall to keep outsiders out.

      And to this day, China still looks inward as much as outward. For Christ's sake, they don't have an independent navy (it comes under the People's Liberation Army, IIRC).

  4. What about the Vikings? by Fred+Millington · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, it seems that now scientists think that not only Egyptians and Vikings 'discovered' America, but now Chinese. Well, I wonder how many other sea-faring cultures have landed on these lee shores in search of a land of riches? Sort of brings to mind various historical-fantasy novels.

    1. Re:What about the Vikings? by leviramsey · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Sort of brings to mind various historical- fantasy novels.

      How many times did Clive Cussler use the pre-Columbian contact plot point in his Dirk PItt novels.

      My God, that author is the most formulaic writer I've ever had the pleasure of reading. But it's good formula. It's put your brain under the seat and relax formula. I like that.

      Sorry to be offtopic... I don't know what prompted that...

    2. Re:What about the Vikings? by Ravagin · · Score: 2

      Read American Gods by Neil Gaiman? One of his premises is just that - a lot of the "old gods" we know from Rome, Egypt, etc are in the Americas as a result of theoretical expeditions like that.

      --

      Karma: T-rexcellent.

    3. Re:What about the Vikings? by BitwizeGHC · · Score: 1

      So, I guess that explains how the Mighty Thor joined the Avengers. :)

      --
      N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
    4. Re:What about the Vikings? by briosa · · Score: 0, Troll

      It would seem to me that the "Native Americans" were the ones to first "discover" America. Moreover, they also peacefully inhabited the land and had a continental population that was close to that of Europe around 19th century. But we killed most of them, so they don't count right? At least they can live in slums and on their native casinos now. Why do white people always think they come first?

    5. Re:What about the Vikings? by nhavar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually if you look at the build, language, art, and customs of the "Native Americans" you will notice many similarities to the northern chinese nomadic populace. This is probably because that is the exact area that the native american ancestors came from, whether crossing a land bridge or by more direct ocean crossing. I think we're finding more and more that our ancestors (all of them white/red/whatever) were wildly nomadic and roamed to a lot more areas than we would have thought possible.

      --
      "Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
    6. Re:What about the Vikings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The native Americans were living peacefully? Where did you hear that lie?

    7. Re:What about the Vikings? by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... and the most modern theory is that the Americas were populated originally by a group of Europeans, who were wiped out by later immigrants from Asia.

      And these were then largely wiped out by a subsequent group of immigrants from Europe.

      So the 15th-19th century near-genocide of the Indians is merely the latest iteration, not a slaughter without parallel.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    8. Re:What about the Vikings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm pre-columbian America was no more peaceful than 6th century Gaul.

    9. Re:What about the Vikings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not quite true. They weren't Europeans, but Thetans. Yeah, like the Scientology kind.

      I know. I was there.

    10. Re:What about the Vikings? by Drakin · · Score: 1

      "peacefully inhabited the land"? Brush up on your history, particuarly that prior to the founding of the 13 colonies, when it North america was simply being exploited for wood, fish, and fur.

      Those who inhabited north america prior to the landingof the europeans did fight wars between various tribes and confederacies. In fact, that's how some of the earliest settlers (Both English and French) gained the trust of the native tribes, they aided them in their conflict with the other native groups.

      As for killed most of them... only the ones that stayed in the US... rather large native population in Canada, which has for the most part been treated better than their american counterparts (and some would argue better than the people of european decent... but that's entirely another issue entirely).

    11. Re:What about the Vikings? by Rand+Race · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Recent evidence indicates that modern mongolian stock 'native americans' wiped out a caucasoid population (thought to be similar to the Ainu of northern Japan) that had arrived before them. They also eradicated all equine and pachyderm species on both American continents. And if you think the Aztecs lived peacably with anyone you are gravely mistaken. Their brutally conquered and ruled subject populations gleefully aided the Spaniards in anhialating the Aztec empire.

      This 'noble savage' theory is as intellectualy bankrupt as social darwanism. Their are no 'good' guys, the vast majority of people throughout history are mean, nasty, and brutish no matter their location or race.

      --
      Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
    12. Re:What about the Vikings? by aiabx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I recall my grade 8 Canadian history correctly, the French and English found Native American allies for their wars so easily by exploiting an already existing war between the Huron and Iroquois. That doesn't sound like peacefully inhabiting the land to me. I put it to you that Native Americans are/were just as violent and warlike as any other members of the species.
      -aiabx

      --
      Just this guy, you know?
    13. Re:What about the Vikings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they have a flag? No? Well, you can't have a country unless you have a flag.

      What? Where's it say that?

      According the the rules ... that ... I just ... made ... up ...

      -Eddie Izzard

    14. Re:What about the Vikings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      entirely?

    15. Re:What about the Vikings? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't call it a "near genocide." There were battles over land, yes. But what killed most of the "native" americans was disease. You can't really blame the early europeans for giving indians disease. Many settlements of america wanted to live in peace, cooperatively with the indians, such as the quakers.

      Don't call it genocide. The vast majority of native deaths was due to the europeans unintentionally bringing disease.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    16. Re:What about the Vikings? by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Yes, this would explain the reports of numerous massacres, the Trail of Tears, and the treaties which are then abrogated almost instantly, the herding of Indians onto reservations, and the decimation of the natural resources on which they depended. It was all an accident!

      Many settlers may have been largely peaceful people, but they were dependent on and willingly paid taxes to an army and a national policy that can only be described as expansionist. Even if many Indian populations died from diseases unintentionally transmitted by Europeans, there were plenty still alive that rightfully owned the land and from whom the land was taken either by force or by trickery. Given that there were *any* battles over land implies that the land was stolen, since it clearly did not first belong to the Europeans who ended up owning it.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    17. Re:What about the Vikings? by Buggernut · · Score: 1

      Recent evidence indicates that modern mongolian stock 'native americans' wiped out a caucasoid population (thought to be similar to the Ainu of northern Japan) that had arrived before them.

      Ainus aren't caucasoids. They're more likely closely related to Southeast Asians and Polynesians.

    18. Re:What about the Vikings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      genocide?? hmm... i thought it was common knowledge that americans are native european half-breeds?

    19. Re:What about the Vikings? by sudog · · Score: 2

      What are you talking about? Spanish specifically brought over smallpox as a form of population control when they conquered south america!

      "Wasn't brought over intentionally." My ass! You really think a few pompous Spaniards could subjugate an entire continent without biological warfare?

    20. Re:What about the Vikings? by Cheetahfeathers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Peacefully? What a load of rubbish. There were a large number of tribes there. They fought wars with each other; they stole land from each other. What do you know... the same thing Europeans did when they came here. The Europeans simply did it more effectively. It was ugly, and I don't at all approve of many of the tactics many Europeans used, but they were not attacking the 'peaceful natives who lived in harmony and happiness until they met the big bad people from across the pond'.

      Note, I also don't approve of their current treatment and status, but please, get some perspective on the situation and the real history of the tribes existing here before the European settlers.

      Posted by a 100% Native American... I was born in America. So was that Peruvian over there. If you want to identify with ancestors instead of yourself, then why aren't we all African?

    21. Re:What about the Vikings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they are caucasoids, and there are caucasoid (note: not caucasian!) characteristics in the polynesians.

      The Japanese brutally oppressed and attempted full genocide of the Jomon/Ainu peoples, those remaining in Hokkaido are of mixed blood, mostly due to rape by the Japanese. Think the Rape of Nanking, over centuries.

      Also, watch Princess Mononoke.

    22. Re:What about the Vikings? by issachar · · Score: 1
      I think the poster's point was that the near destruction of the natives was more the result of disease than European barbarism.

      He's probably correct. Without disease, it's unlikely the Europeans could have dominated the America's the way they did. The March issue of Atlantic Monthly has a good article about it. They suggest that the pre-contact Native population was dramatically higher than previously thought. (Sorry it's not available online until next month, but check out your local library...)

      --
      . --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
    23. Re:What about the Vikings? by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      That is an excellent point. I will definitely look for the article to come online. Even so, it doesn't excuse the numerous aggressive acts and policies of the U.S. towards the Indians, but it certainly provides a wider understanding of the dynamics of the times.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    24. Re:What about the Vikings? by issachar · · Score: 1
      it doesn't excuse the numerous aggressive acts and policies of the U.S. towards the Indians


      Certainly not. Murder is still murder and racism is still racism, and they're both still wrong. I just bring it up because it's an interesting field of scholarship. (It's also not widely agreed on). It also leads to an interesting "What-if" type question. If Europeans (and the later North American governments) hadn't been so agressive how different would the situation be now? People have always assumed that it would be radically different. But if the native population would have been decimated anyway, with all the social cultural consequences that go with that...


      Was there any truly good way for contact to be initiated at that time?

      --
      . --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
    25. Re:What about the Vikings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Wasn't brought over intentionally." My ass! You really think a few pompous Spaniards could subjugate an entire continent without biological warfare?

      What are you, stupid, ignorant, or both?

      The Spanish conquered the Americas with superior military technology and organization, and with the help of Indian tribes hostile to the local ruling groups (ie, the Aztecs). Disease didn't help the Spanish conquests; in fact it slowed them down a bit as it also effected their own soldiers and their indian allies.

      The real introduction of diseases was accidental and mostly post-conquest. If the Spanish had known anything about how disease worked, they would have stopped it after the conquest, because the introduced diseases were depriving them of a healthy workforce to work the mines and plantations of their newly conquered territories. Black slaves were introduced precisely because they were resistant to these diseases - an expensive importation which the Spanish would gladly have avoided had they known anything about modern medical science.

    26. Re:What about the Vikings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cahokia, the largest pre-Columbian settlement where the US is now, was completely abandoned before Columbus was even born. Fifteen thousand people used to live there. What happened? The current belief is that environmental degradation finished them off.

    27. Re:What about the Vikings? by srvivn21 · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:


      This 'noble savage' theory is as intellectualy bankrupt as social darwanism. Their are no 'good' guys, the vast majority of people throughout history are mean, nasty, and brutish no matter their location or race.



      The main difference between the perceived 'noble savage' and us, is they were not bent on world domination. Humans (for most of human history) have not held the belief that they had the "one right way to live". That is a very recent shift (the past 10,000 years or so), and limited to society where food is kept under lock and key.

      Here is a beautiful excerpt from a speech by Daniel Quinn:


      It has been the work of my life to pin down and demolish the lie that is at the root of this mythology in our culture. It's to be found in the way we tell the human story itself in our culture. You can see it perpetuated in textbook after textbook, and if you keep your eyes open, you'll see it repeated weekly somewhere---in a newspaper or magazine article, in a television documentary. Here it is, the human story as it's told in our culture, day in and day out, stripped to its essentials. "Humans appeared in the living community about three million years ago. When they appeared, they were foragers, just like their primate ancestors. Over the millennia, these foragers added hunting to their repertoire and so became hunter-gatherers. Humans lived as hunter-gatherers until about ten thousand years ago, when they abandoned this life for the agricultural life, settling down into villages and beginning to build the civilization that encircles the world today." That's the story as our children learn it, and it has just this one little problem, that it didn't happen that way at all. Ten thousand years ago, it was not HUMANITY that traded in the foraging life for the agricultural life and began to build civilization, it was a single culture. One culture out of ten thousand cultures did this, and the other nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine went on exactly as before. Over the millennia that followed, this one culture, born in the middle east, overran neighboring cultures in all directions, finally arriving in the New World about five hundred years ago. At which point it began to overrun the native cultures of THIS part of the world as well. It is a truism that the conqueror gets to write the history books, and the history our children learn is history as WE tell it. And the central lie of this history is that HUMANITY ITSELF did what WE did.



      There may not be a 'noble savage', but mean, nasty and brutish as "they" may be, "they" are nothing compared to "us".
    28. Re:What about the Vikings? by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      There's another theory about the great seafaring nations and the settling of the americas: the "land bridge" was not used, and South America was settled first by polynesian explorers. You know, the ones that sailed and settled virtually the entire pacific ocean. These peoples had an expand or die culture. Where the Hawaiians came from is under debate, but it is guaranteed to be improbably far for an outrigger canoe. This theory says that, probably from Hawaii, they reached out to Easter Island, and then further on into South America

    29. Re:What about the Vikings? by Buggernut · · Score: 1

      Actually, they are caucasoids, and there are caucasoid (note: not caucasian!) characteristics in the polynesians.

      You mean australoid?

    30. Re:What about the Vikings? by foqn1bo · · Score: 1

      Cake or Death!
      Uhh, Cake please.
      Well, we're all out of cake.
      What do mean OR death?!!


    31. Re:What about the Vikings? by nomadic · · Score: 2

      That's a non-sequitur.

      They were able to subjugate the continent due to the European diseases that swept through it. How would the fact that it was accidently brought over be disproved by the fact that they used the advantage it gave them successfully?

      Your argument doesn't make sense.

  5. Re:you just don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There is some evidence that there have been multiple waves of settlers coming to America over the last 20000 years, each exterminating the people that preceded them and each wreaking havoc on the environment. Europeans were following a proud tradition.

  6. Re:you just don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This explains the indians' obsession with MSG.

  7. History lessens by lodn · · Score: 1

    Hmmz does this mean all those historybooks need to be changes? Wow i'm going to buy some stocks ;-)

    1. Re:History lessens by leviramsey · · Score: 1
      Hmmz does this mean all those historybooks need to be changes? Wow i'm going to buy some stocks ;-)

      Not much more than a few footnotes. As I noted in another post, there is no evidence that the Chinese did anything with this discovery. Is this world a vastly different place than it would be had the Chinese not landed? If it's not, then the Chinese "discovery," which was at the least some centuries after the Vikings, is somewhat meaningless in the scheme of things.

    2. Re:History lessens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the original article. It suggests that
      Columbus used maps drawn by Chinese.
      This does change story quite a bit.

      Kubus

    3. Re:History lessens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      History books? Maybe you should worry about dictionaries first...

      http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=lessons

  8. Ja ! by overlord · · Score: 1

    The problem was that at this time, no one had
    discovered the chinesse.

    OverLord

    1. Re:Ja ! by leviramsey · · Score: 1
      The problem was that at this time, no one had discovered the chinesse.

      This was some 300 years after Marco Polo may (or may not have... some of the non-fanciful elements of his accounts seem to have no basis in reality) have been at the court of Kublai Khan.

      In addition, there was an active silk trade from Europe to China (that's why cities in Afghanistan and Pakistan are referred to as dating back to the Silk Road).

    2. Re:Ja ! by T-Punkt · · Score: 2

      What about Marco polo and family?
      http://www.silk-road.com/artl/marcopolo.s html

      No, i don't want to say that Marco polo "discovered" china but that China/Mongolia and Europe had loose contact with each other for quite some time before Zheng He or Columbus have placed their feet on American soil.

  9. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i wonder what's gonna happen to columbus day

    how many history books need to go into reprint, time to get some stocks !

  10. So? by leviramsey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Vikings touched base 400 years prior to the Chinese. The Arabs had the technology and knowledge to do it. The Romans, Phoenicians, and Egyptians may have done it.

    But ultimately, none of those is important as Columbus' "discovery". Why? Because what was the end result of Chinese exploration of the Americas? Or of the Vikings? Or of Saint Brendan? It cannot be denied that Columbus had an effect on the history of the world (for better or for worse). Does this lessen the accomplishment of crossing an ocean? No. But exploration is only one side of the coin. There is also what you do with it. It's the difference between pure science and applied science. You can't have the applied without the pure, but the applied has a hell of a lot more bearing on the world.

    That said, I am fascinated by all things to do with geography and history. This is an unquestionably cool discovery. But it's not earth shattering.

    1. Re:So? by barryk · · Score: 1

      But ultimately, none of those is important as Columbus' "discovery". Why? Because what was the end result of Chinese exploration of the Americas?

      Yes, no one else moved in quite as swiftly and raped the entire continent like Columbus and friends.

    2. Re:So? by Ravagin · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      My thoughts exactly, comrade.

      Another thing is that neither the Chinese, nor the Vikings, nor anyone else who may have done it initiated a genocide campaign on such a scale as Columbus' (and freends) against the native inhabitants of the continent. Guess that's the way to get famous, then. When we find life on another planet, will we have to kill most of it, too, for the discovery to be significant?

      --

      Karma: T-rexcellent.

    3. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO the way to look at this news is that
      it does not discredit anybody, but remember that world does not resume to europe and america, and that asian and arabs also share the world and have
      contributed much.

      There's a lot interesting things in asian and arab world/history besides terrorists and communism.

    4. Re:So? by Sabriel · · Score: 1
      Specious argument. {they never conquered X} because {they never colonised X} does not automatically equal {they would not have conquered X if they'd colonised it}.

      Abort, retry, ignore?

    5. Re:So? by Ravagin · · Score: 2

      We may be miscommunicating. My point was that the post-Columbian Europeans are more "noticeable" because they annihilated native populations, whereas it seems most people just took a look around, maybe set up a settlement or two, and left it at that.

      --

      Karma: T-rexcellent.

    6. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      typical revisionist liberal tripe. tell you what, why don't you use a different word than rape at least, a word used to invoke strong emotion in people, with more negative connotation than you can imagine. pretty sad actually, you're life...

    7. Re:So? by markmoss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exploration is one thing. Exploiting a discovery across an ocean is quite another. The Vikings had too many opportunities closer to home to leave very many of them interested in taking up farms in Newfoundland. (One group had already conquered Russia; another conquered a province of France, became Christians, then conquered England, Ireland, Sicily, Jerusalem, ...) So they didn't get a big enough colony to fight off the indian tribes. There wasn't much chance they could get along with them. Lief Ericson's father had been run out of two countries for murdering his neighbors, and in America Lief couldn't even speak the neighbors' language before he started off by stealing their land...

      So the Vikings might have ranged along the coast, and their fishermen might have landed there to dry cod for some centuries. There are also indications that English fishermen were taking cod from the Grand Banks well before Columbus sailed, and of course they would have noticed the nearby land. But in 1492, Europeans were finally becoming ready to cross an ocean and _stay_. It was no longer possible to loot the middle east under guise of a crusade. Looting each other led to early death far more often than to wealth. But now they had much improved sailing ships so they could go out and loot new lands...

      Of course, those Englishmen who landed at Jamestown in the expectation of digging gold up on the beach, or stealing it from the Indians, were sorely disappointed. They had to turn farmers just to survive -- and then farming turned out to be quite lucrative, especially once explorers along the African coast found a solution to the labor problem...

    8. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the idea of genocide implies a certain degree of malice and intent. The 15th-16th century Spaniards wiped out the native populations with smallbox not shot and pike and they had no idea what a virus was. If the Amerindians had had any kind of similar nasty disease the wipe out could have swung both ways.

      Frankly, even if the Spaniards had arrived with Greenpeace-stype intentions they still would have wiped out the locals.

    9. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Amerindians had had any kind of similar nasty disease the wipe out could have swung both ways.

      Syphilis. Didn't exactly wipe out western society, but it killed a lot of people, and went on doing so for hundreds of years.

    10. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Vikings never conquered Ireland.

      They/us (interbreeding) alternately traded with and raided our coastal settlements, and established some of their own (notably Dublin, Wicklow (Vik-low: translates as "that place where the Vikings landed" or "Viking's meadow") - but they never even came close to "conquering" the whole country.

      Only England, centuries later, came close to controlling the whole country even in name (and we all know how well that turned out...)

    11. Re:So? by sharkey · · Score: 1
      ...what was the end result of Chinese exploration of the Americas?

      Currently:

      DMCA

      Dubya's War on Freedom

      "Operation Infinite Justice/Operation Enduring Freedom"
      to name a few.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    12. Re:So? by dallen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The most exciting part of Mr. Menzies discovery was not only that discovered America; Zheng He's ships also circumnavigated the globe and got very close to both the North and South poles.

      Additionally, Cook, Magellan, de Gama and Columbus all had accurate maps of the world. Mr. Menzies says: "What nobody has explained is why the European explorers had maps. Who drew the maps? There are millions of square miles of ocean. It required huge fleets to chart them. If you say it wasn't the Chinese, with the biggest fleets and ships in the world, then who was it?"

      Also, apparently the Chinese ships dwarfed european ships of the 15th and 16th centuries, and only about 5% of the Chinese explorers survived to return to China; But by the time Zheng He returned to China, the government was in chaos and the fleets were mothballed.

      A small number of records and charts survived to be passed to Western explorers.

      There is a more complete article about this in the London Daily Telegraph.

    13. Re:So? by Speed+Racer · · Score: 1

      There's a lot interesting things in asian and arab world/history besides terrorists and communism.

      Like wasabi and hummus? Mmm, I'm hungry now.

      --
      Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
    14. Re:So? by Anonymous+Coed · · Score: 1

      That's the funny thing. If you look at actual primary sources (writings of the people at the time,) most of what went on was pretty much rape. Oh of course, there were isolated incidents of kindness and friendship between native peoples and colonizing Europeans, but by and large you can accurately call the colonization process "rape."

    15. Re:So? by rho · · Score: 2

      "Genocide campaign"? Care to prove that? Look up the definition of genocide, first.

      Incidentally, the "noble savages" of the Americas were doing quite a good job of eradicating themselves before anybody else came along.

      The attempt to paint history in a different light than the truth is getting old. Go accuse white guys of something else for a change--like running over baby ducks. The self-flaggellating guilt-trip is tired.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    16. Re:So? by Rupert · · Score: 2

      Columbus' map was horribly inaccurate. It gave the circumference of the earth as 15k miles. That's why he thought it was feasible to cross the Atlantic/Pacific to the east indies - he thought it was only 3k miles.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    17. Re:So? by swb · · Score: 1, Troll

      Another thing is that neither the Chinese, nor the Vikings, nor anyone else who may have done it initiated a genocide campaign on such a scale as Columbus'

      The Arabs were more interested in slave traffic -- why kill your conquered people when they were valuable slaves! Certainly no expansionist people in history has a clean moral scorecard, particularly when judged by the moral standards practiced today.

      I'd also take issue with a genocide campaign. Where specifically was it the stated goal of the Spanish or Portuguese to kill off everyone they met? Certainly they approached it with a military mindset (ie, subdue organized opposition with force). They did bring diseases with them nonexistant in the western hemisphere, but how do you blame anyone for that given the level of scientific and medical understanding in the 16th century?

    18. Re:So? by the+phantom · · Score: 2
      Incidentally, the "noble savages" of the Americas were doing quite a good job of eradicating themselves before anybody else came along.

      Where are you getting this idea from?
      What specific groups are you talking about?
      How were they wiping themselves out?
      How was this worse than smallpox, as your post seems to imply?

      The "truth" is that smallpox and other European diseases wiped out a huge percentage of the native population in the Americas. Blankets, used by sick individuals were traded to the Indians as an early biological weapon. Europeans brought with them weapons that could not be beaten by native warfare, horses that gave them an incredible edge, and vast numbers.

      While "genocide" is a bit strong, to not acknowledge the role that Europeans had in subjugating and wiping out a huge population is as equally irresposnible as claiming that the Europeans did commit genocide.
    19. Re:So? by rbeattie · · Score: 2


      I HATE HATE HATE when people put quotes around the word discovery. Yes, I understand that the Americas were here before the rest of the world stumbled upon it, but that's what discover means. Dis-cover. It was hidden, then found. Get it?

      When I lose my glasses and discover them under a pillow, I don't put the word discover in quotes. When I discover that putting a CD into a microwave causes sparks, I don't quote the word either since it's obvious to me that I'm not the first to do this. When Columbus ran into a couple continents that the rest of the world had forgotten existed, he discovered it. No quotes needed.

      Case closed. Un-PC yourself.

      -Russ

      --
      Me
    20. Re:So? by maxpublic · · Score: 4, Informative

      So what? How is this any different than what a conquering people have done to a conquered people a thousand times in the past? You're saying that scale alone somehow makes the whole thing more 'evil'?

      And 80% of the Native American mortality wasn't due to slavery, or genocide, or the use of biological weapons. It was due to the fact that Native Americans had no resistance to common, resistable diseases among Europeans, like the flu. By the time Lewis and Clark reached the Willamette Valley - the first white guys to see alot of America - almost 90% of the valley population had been killed by diseases spread from Native American population to Native American population across the continent. Not smallpox, which never reached the Willamette valley, but primarily the flu.

      The Native Americans were no more peaceful than any other people on earth. In fact, a half-dozen or so various confederations were bloodily at war when the Europeans arrived. The Incans and Aztects brutally enslaved and murdered hundreds of thousands of people, allowing the Spaniards to pick up huge armies of allies when they marched upon these empires - because the Native Americans hated each other so much.

      They were not peaceful or noble or any different than any other human population you care to look at. The only difference between them and, say, all the native peoples the Assyrians wiped out is that some subset of Americans has decided to engage in self-flagellation over the issue.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    21. Re:So? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2
      The lesson we learn from this example of biological warfare is that he with the baddest diseases wins. The choices of diseases brought to battle was largely random chance. (The Old World just happened to have more diverse population to draw diseases from.)

      If the New World had more powerful diseases, the Aztec culture would probably be dominiant in Europe today. They would have boned up on European technology, then come accross the Atlantic, kicked European ass, taken their land and subjugated the people.

    22. Re:So? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Cromwell controlled the SHIT out of you. Us too. :-]

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    23. Re:So? by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      Do not make excuses, To me its the same as the situation with Isreal and Palistine, no matter what you say, STEALING a country from someone else is not right, and may not even have been necessary.

      People in this world just refuse to share, even today.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    24. Re:So? by Brigadier · · Score: 1



      With all due respect, I would not credit the Europeans with as much exploration, ans exploitation. Funny thing is you dont see this in histry books. Perhaps because they were written by Europeans. Anyways many other cultures have explored traded with and left their counterparts unharmed and in most cases for the better. Europeans have analiated, used, enslaved, raped each and every culture they have come across. None of which reperations or apologies have been made. I once spoke to a friend who grew up in England and he explained he had not learned much about slavery until goign out on his own to find information. it was simple glazed over in histry lessons.

    25. Re:So? by QuimKnuckle · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      Too bad we can't give more than +5. This is exactly what I was thinking.

      --
      Would you like a knuckle sandwich?
    26. Re:So? by markmoss · · Score: 2

      The Vikings never conquered Ireland. Not Vikings, Normans -- that is, Vikings that had learned to speak French, fight like "civilized" men (wearing armor, riding horses, and slaughtering systematically instead of haphazardly), and to claim that God supported them in their depredations. In the century after the Normans took England, they spread out everywhere that didn't meet them with equal ferocity, and that does include Ireland. AFAIK most of the Irish lords were replaced by Normans for a while. However, once they grabbed a piece of land for themselves, the Normans did not unite behind one king except in Normandy and England (several generations of Dukes and Kings had to make damned sure that unity was NOT voluntary), and without a central authority the Normans just melted into the Irish population over a couple of generations. This was apparently a far more peaceful process than the end of Norman rule in Sicily and Palestine...

      The most obvious Norman influence remaining is in Irish names. You do know that the "Fitz" prefix so common is the Norman for "bastard son of"?

    27. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must not have read any history books lately. That's all they seem to be about anymore. Of course documenting the rape of societies in infinitely regressive. In history we talked about Europeans killing the Native Americans, then we digressed earlier into the genoicidal wars the Native Americans were waging upon themselves, and the cannibalism. Then because we had some nature lovers in the class that devolved into the Indians purposely setting forest fires, and eventually we hit cro-magnon times when people first started killing each other over turf and were too dumb to realize what they were doing. At that point we called it good and moved on.

    28. Re:So? by Reziac · · Score: 2

      I know someone who compiles [insert your preferred euphemism implying "Native American" here] genealogies for a living. She's found there were Vikings living in Minnesota about 1000 A.D.

      Guess that explains all those Norske accents thereabouts :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    29. Re:So? by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2

      Sounds much like the Kensington Runestone. Back around the turn of last century, the Scandinavian immigrants in MN were always digging up various Viking artifacts which 'proved' that they had some moral claim to the land.

      The most prominent being a large stone with a runic account of a battle with the natives in the 1300s. It's generally considered to be a very good fake, but there's still a few credible people who believe that it's real.

      Anyway, it's a particular interest of mine, so I'd be interested in any more information that you might have about these genealogies -- nutscrapesucks (at) yahoo. Thanks.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    30. Re:So? by markmoss · · Score: 2

      Just exactly does she do that? I don't believe the native americans chipped their birth certificates into stone...

    31. Re:So? by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Sorry, that's about all I remember and it's not something I've been involved with. I've lost track of the person I mentioned (Mary, I forget her last name). :(

      She had a wonderful story about a talk she gave at some group (Daughters of the Puritans or something like that). Afterward, a woman came up and proudly announced that she was a many-times-great-granddaughter of [some famous Puritan woman].

      Mary said, "No, you're not."

      The woman proceeded to show Mary a fancy pedigree and again insisted she was the descendant of this famous Puritan, of pure blood and whatnot.

      Mary said, "No, you're not. [Famous Puritan woman] was sterile -- she adopted 13 Indian children."

      Needless to say the formerly pure-blooded woman was reduced to sputters :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    32. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty naive to think the Europeans have some unique genetic predisposition towards raping & pillaging. Many many peoples and cultures that have had the power to opress their neighbors have done so. The huns killed millions in the fertile crescent, the arabs have and continue to enslave africans, the japanese did horrible things in the 1930's and 40's. None of this excuses anyone - it's all horrible, but sadly quite common.

      It's also using a pretty broad brush to state that no culture that has had contact with the Europeans has gotten any benefit. Think of the lives that penecillin alone has saved.

    33. Re:So? by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Some Indian tribes were literate (notably in the Northeast); in a few cases some written material has survived. Some was taken from tribal histories verbally handed down over the centuries. In other cases she had to rely on 3rd party material, cross-checked for accuracy. She was quite astonished to discover that the Indian genealogies presented in The Book Of Mormon were quite accurate for some southwestern coastal U.S. tribes (per cross-checks with other available info).

      (This is from memory, I haven't seen her in over a decade.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    34. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, now I don't have to point out the same thing :)

      I give homage to Columbus on his day for transforming the New World.

      Discovering though, nah ;)

    35. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans were the first to walk on the moon. So? By the same token of your argument, the Apollo project had no importance. Woohoo. big deal. They brought some ROCKS back. Pure science isn't as cool as applied science. Let's all pretend that the Chinese sailing technology of crossing the HUGE Pacific had no applicable significance, because Columbus is so much cooler for some reason.

      Let's also ignore the trivial fact that Chinese sea-faring technology was so advanced that they discovered south-eastern Africa way before any Europeans did, and have been able to bring back giraffes and other animals back to China for observation, because history can't possibly be more dominated with whiteness than it already is.

    36. Re:So? by more+fool+you · · Score: 1

      who hid it then?

    37. Re:So? by Ravagin · · Score: 2

      I don't think dear old Mr. Columbus' salughtering of natives who didn't comply with his wishes (see Howard Zinn's people's history of the us) represents any beneficient intentions... the europeans came and with an attitude that the natives were vastly inferior and thus, even through the 1800s, had no problem with killing them en masse. Trail of Tears, anyone?

      --

      Karma: T-rexcellent.

    38. Re:So? by the+phantom · · Score: 2

      While I myself am a pacifist, I don't have any illusions about past war fare. The Indians native to the Americas fought when they had to, but most tribes were hunter-gatherers. As I said before, hkunter-gatherers don't have the resources to fight wars. To say that the Aztec, Maya, and Inca are a representative sample is false.

      Yes, the Aztec were mean and nasty, but for every Aztec-type group in the new world, I can name two hunter-gatherer or horticulture based groups that did not engage in warfare because the resources (i.e. food, people, etc.) were simply not available.

      My point is not that the Indians were "noble savages", but, rather, that the original post claimed that the Indians were on the way to destroying themselves, and that what eventually occured due to the Europeans was bound to happen, so what difference does it make.

  11. Re:My experiences in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are cities in the US with far worse conditions than that.

  12. Re:you just don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes, there were almost all killed thousand of year later though ....

  13. Lots of people beat Columbus by rufusdufus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is strong evidence that people as diverse as the Phoenicians, the Vikings, the Irish, the Welsh, the Chinese, the Japanese and English fisherman were actually in the New World, in some cases, millennia before 1492.

    Search internet for lots of sources: One with a short description here

    1. Re:Lots of people beat Columbus by Czarnian · · Score: 2, Funny

      Alex Chiu used his time-machine, discovered America 13,000 years ago and was living forever until the magnetic poles flipped and his head exploded.

    2. Re:Lots of people beat Columbus by SamBeckett · · Score: 1

      That website smells a lot like City Chicken and City Beef from China! Oy!

    3. Re:Lots of people beat Columbus by Derwen · · Score: 1

      There is strong evidence that people as diverse as the ... the Welsh ... were actually in the New World, in some cases, millennia before 1492.
      Yeah. But we found that the Americans didn't have a rugby team, so we never went back ;-)
      - Derwen

      --
      http://fsfeurope.org/
    4. Re:Lots of people beat Columbus by leviramsey · · Score: 1
      Yeah. But we found that the Americans didn't have a rugby team, so we never went back

      Really?

    5. Re:Lots of people beat Columbus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cymru am byth!

    6. Re:Lots of people beat Columbus by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      Looking for someone you could actually beat?

    7. Re:Lots of people beat Columbus by derch · · Score: 1

      Why does all this matter? Everyone knows the Americas were originally settled by the Three Toed Ugabundas from Proxima 10. Humans call us sloths, but what you do know? You run around working and slaving, while we hang in a the trees and f***. You tell me who's the more advanced race?

      All praise Gonzo, the Magificent Ugabunda!

    8. Re:Lots of people beat Columbus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um Yeah, that was around before 1492.

  14. America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America is meant to be the name of the this whole western piece of land, not just the country U.S. resides.

    Just like Americans call their baseball champions the world champions, they also call their land America which is only half correct because there is baseball in japan and cuba, and there is central and south america to account for as well.

    1. Re:America by ajmarks · · Score: 0

      But all of the really good baseball players are bought by American teams, so America has the only really good baseball league. That said, baseball is an American sport, poorly emulated elsewhere (because we get those who can do it well).

      --
      Opinions are not Informative, though they may be Insightful or Interesting.
    2. Re:America by thelizman · · Score: 1

      Dear whiner,

      Once upon a time, baseball (among other competitive endeavours) was only played in America. Ergo, if all the baseball teams in the world are in America (and Canada), then it's perfectly fair to call a competition between any of these teams "world series". Since then, some things have changed. If you've got a problem with that, then instead of crying about it, why don't you solicit MLB to allow japanese teams to come get their ass kicked by the Yank..er..Diamond Backs.

      Now...go eat some lead paint chips or something.

    3. Re:America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear motherfucker - ram a bat up your ass for that comment. You americans are world class dick suckers, I see you're a redneck just like your prezident.

      Up yours.

  15. columbus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it has been long established that columbus wasn't the first to discover america - even if you don't count native americans: some northern european guys where there before. and by the way: none of columbuses' boats where called santa maria. this name doesn't emerge until a lot of time after his death.

  16. Re:My experiences in China by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Yet another insightful American view...

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  17. China didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the probel with that is that China didn't exist until very recently, I don't recall the exact name of the place, but the english meaning would be something similar to "the heart"; it didn't have boarders, as people who did feal a belonging to others formed a "nation", thus one region could belong to several "nations" simultaniously.

    Anyway, it's interesting, the vikings went to the northamerican continent too.
    I guess it is important as the similarities between taoism and many native american religions is stunning; and the native americans are quite yellow skinned, similar to their asian friends.

    1. Re:China didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah,but this is slashdot...you gotta push the communist angle all the time, see....

      "Chinese super men are our superiors"
      News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.?????

      More like:
      News for commie's. Stuff that we wish.

  18. A map? by pinkUZI · · Score: 1

    The article claims that Columbus used maps created by the Chinese also mentioned in the article. It seems rather silly that anyone ever claimed that Columbus discoverd America in the first place if his journals indicated that he took a map with him.

    --
    You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
    1. Re:A map? by marijne · · Score: 1

      especially strange considering that Columbus meant to find India, so how could he possibly have a map for finding America

    2. Re:A map? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it would be only natural to use Chinese maps, since where Columbus was actually going to was India, not America. That is quite near China, at least broadly in the same waters, so it is likely Chinese would have useful maps.

    3. Re:A map? by pinkUZI · · Score: 1

      You're right, there have got to be errors in the article. Or, possibly, the Chinese thought that they discovered India, as well?

      --
      You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
    4. Re:A map? by leviramsey · · Score: 1

      Columbus was looking for contract programmers...

      It's somewhere in his logs. I guarantee it.

    5. Re:A map? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Morons and charlatans will always use absurd "facts" to justify their skewed beliefs, regardless of how easy they are to refute.

      I'm waiting for the Chinese to start claiming they were the first to the moon as well.

    6. Re:A map? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he was looking for a passage _westward_ to India. A map that showed North America, would help but only if it was incomplete as to the fact that the westward passage was completely blocked. A Chinese map might not have shown the Central American isthmus, or might not have shown South America at all. This would have been encouraging.

    7. Re:A map? by vidarh · · Score: 2
      Columbus meant to find an alternate route to China. Both India and China was well known to Europeans at the time, but the only route used for trade to China was dangerous due to recurrent wars.

      Since China was the only source of a lot of valuable goods (most notably silk), and was considered a rich country after Marco Polos descriptions, it was seen as a worthwhile target.

      A common theory is that Columbus knew that he would find "unknown land" (to the powers that be in Europe at the time) to the west, and that he used China just as "bait" to get the ships etc. that he needed.

      There are lots of stories about Columbus having maps, and various accounts of what the sources of those maps are. Some say Portuguese or Basque explorers, fishermen or even Portuguese settlers among the Viking on Greenland, others say the Vikings, the Irish (there are accounts of Irish sailing to America as well), the Chinese, Egyptians and more. I've no idea whether there's any actual proof for any of that, though, and won't try to make a guess about it.

    8. Re:A map? by BigBir3d · · Score: 2

      christianity.

      (note all others mentioned who "discovered" the americas are not christian, and that our history is heavily christianity based)

      he who writes the history books is "correct."

    9. Re:A map? by knuth · · Score: 2

      BigBir3d says,

      all others mentioned who "discovered" the americas are not christian

      Not true. Claimants St. Brendan the Navigator and Leif Ericson were Christian.

    10. Re:A map? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Columbus had already sailed to Iceland and possibly Greenland. He -knew- of Whitmannasland, Helluland, Markland and Vinland, he sailed south to avoid them on his way to the Maluku Islands where he was intending to go.

      The Norse lived in North America for around 500 years. Climate change and raids by Innuit and Bristol pirates caused them to seek lands in Iceland that were made available due to the massive dying caused by the Black Death.

      And of course, the Norse/Scots expedition to Manitoba and Minnesota in the mid 14th century is a matter of historical, and now archeological record.

      There is serious question as to whether the Chinese eunuch made it to America, as the same year they claim he was in the Caribbean, he was actually in Sumatra. This could be more PLA imperialistic claims.

    11. Re:A map? by BigBir3d · · Score: 1

      St. Brendan is true. AFAIK Leif converted after he became an adult, came home and converted his mother, but his father refused.

  19. Why Columbus anyway? by hokanomono · · Score: 1

    It should be obvious to everybody that Columbus' exploration cannot possibly be the first to "discover" america, since there already lived a lot of people when Colubus arrived. His discovery was only new for souther europeans. (with an important influence on the european culture) For the same reason, the chinese were not the first either.

    All the kidding about america now being chinese is leaving out the fact that amerika once belongt to the americans.

    --
    This sig is a true statement, but I cannot prove it.
    1. Re:Why Columbus anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Americans" as in "I think I'll name this piece of land after my sponsor Amerigo Vespucci" and "Indians" as in "Gee. I think this must be India!"

      Around the same time as Columbus "discovered" (read: came along and trigged a genocide) North America, Italian, Spanish and Dutch vessels traveled the Norwegian coasts in search of the same stuff that Columbus looked for: fame, fortune and tradeable stuff. As a result of this, lots and lots of Norwegians from the northern parts of the country have Dutch, Italian and Spanish blood in them.

      What's the difference in this case between Norway and USA? Nothing, except that there's no such thing as a Norwegian native. There never was.

      The big difference between the discovery of North America and other continents is what happened later.

      In the case of Norway: it has a LOT of natural resources and would make anyone "discovering" it pretty filthy rich.

      Only Tom Cruise doesn't live there.

    2. Re:Why Columbus anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What's the difference in this case between Norway and USA? Nothing, except that there's no such thing as a Norwegian native. There never was.

      You allege (without evidence) that there are lot's of non-Norwegian Norwegians (funny, every Norwegian I have ever met or heard of had a Norwegian name, not a Dutch or English or Spanish name).

      And then you spew this ridiculous nonsense about there being no Norwegian "natives". Bullshit. If the Norwegians are not native Norwegians, then the "Native" Americans are not native Americans, either.

      After all, they all immigrated to America, and moved around a lot, taking land from each other. Whereas Norwegians have been in Norway since before recorded history, and probably have ancestors going back to when the ice sheets first retreated, just as they found that fellow in Britain sharing the same DNA with an ice age corpse found in Britain a few years back.

      God, Political Correctness rots the brain. You people are an embarassment.

  20. All of history is biased by InfinIT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a great bit of news. We have know for a long time that the history of a war is written by those winning the war. This simply extends this theory a bit.

    It is very interesting that the history of the world is written by the dominant group of the time. All the European discoveries are posed as someone discovering something new. The ver fact that there were people in the USA when Columbous landed proves that he did not "discover" it at all - he simply opened the minds of the dominant group of people of the time (The Europeans)

    South African history is an example of this. Up till about 15 years ago, the only known history of South Africa was that it was discovered by Europeans, liberated from the savages and made a civilised country. REcent events have shown the barbarism of the European nations in the colonisation of the country, and has started to show the positive side of the indigenous people.

    I think it is great that something like this will shake some of the beliefs of the American people. It is nice to see that places outside the European nations actually did some discovery prior to the Europeans.

    On a final note - it is interesting that all the histories of the oriental races I have come across, everytime there is a meeting between the europeans (or other leaders of the known world) the Chinese are seen as very shrewd, civilised people - very few of the other cultured have had this benefit. Does it really surprise me (against this background) that the chinese charted Australia and the Americas before the Europeans? No...

    1. Re:All of history is biased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah some facts about south africa such as - for instance - that the Zulus used the Xhosas for slave labour for about 4000 years ?
      - Before the whites came to south africa it was - according to western standards - an uncivilized place (even though some traces of civilisation, such as Great Zimbabwe, were evident).
      - South Africa have now started the long journey back to chaos like the rest of the countries surrounding it. In 20-30 years we'll have another Mugabe and more of the so-called "african civilisation" (corruption, murder, abuse of power, lawlessness etc.)

    2. Re:All of history is biased by pdeweese · · Score: 1

      South Africa: Note that the native Africans there now are not the same blacks that were there to meet the Dutch when they first sailed down, but have pretty much conquered and replaced the bush men. They are just as un-pretty as the imperialists.

      China: You mention about the Chinese people being shrewd and civilized.. They certainly were, and while they have kept a lot more of their culture than a lot of Communist countries, it is amazing what communism does to extinguish progress.

    3. Re:All of history is biased by Derkec · · Score: 2

      Regarding the "discovery" issue. If I'm of a culture and I learn something nobody in my culture knew, I've discovered it. We may not be the first, but many cultures may discover the same thing. That people where in the New World prior Columbous doesn't mean he didn't do any discovering. Nobody puts forward that C. was the first guy to hit the new world, but his discovery opened the doors to great (big not good) changes in the wrold.

    4. Re:All of history is biased by raldanash · · Score: 1

      Your post is a bit simplistic. As others have posted-South Africa was dominated by Khoisan people until the Bantu expansion that swept east and south overran them. The Xhosa still show a lot of Khoisan features (Nelsen Mandela has obvious Khoisan facial features)-but the Zulus are closer to the Bantu type.

      European brutality is more well documented mostly because Europeans cared to record it and some of them actually objected. Europeans (Spaniards) treated the native peoples like beasts-and yet some in the religious orders dissented and passionate debate were held about the rights of the natives in Spain. In fact, the Hapsburg Emperor Charles tried to prevent the exploitation-but he was too far from the situation to be of much use (he was also involved in something called the Wars of Religion in central Europe).

      In contrast, the Aztecs had few ethical debates about engaging in wars with other peoples simply to aquire human bodies for sacrifice. By the way-there is now some evidence that the "native" peoples of the New World displaced older peoples (the Tierra del Fuegans being hybrid remnants possible of the older inhabitants).

      --
      NO gods, NO governments, NO [OPTION]....
    5. Re:All of history is biased by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      Errm that would be totalitarianism not communism, and by that light how did the unprogressive Communist Russia manage to get a man into space before the oh-so forward-looking US.

    6. Re:All of history is biased by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2
      I think it is great that something like this will shake some of the beliefs of the American people. It is nice to see that places outside the European nations actually did some discovery prior to the Europeans.

      I'm an American person. The idea that somebody else landed here before Columbus doesn't shake my beliefs at all. What beliefs do you think should be shaken? I am sure lots of people got lost and ended up here or whatever over the history of the world. They either died here or never cared to investigate once they got back. Basically, these 'discoverys' were worthless because they were either not documented or nothing came of them. For all useful purposes, Columbus discovered America. I am not exactly shaking. Did you have a point?

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    7. Re:All of history is biased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking niggers don't know when they got a good thing. It's about time evolution was allowed to do the decent thing and the black man allowed to go the way of the Neanderthal.

    8. Re:All of history is biased by zephyyrh · · Score: 1

      This is a great bit of news. We have know for a long time that the history of a war is written by those winning the war. This simply extends this theory a bit. Well, not really. E.g., Thucydides' "The History of the Peloponnesian War" is one of the definitive accounts of that conflict, even through is was written by a citizen of the losing city-state. The whole "winners write the history books" line has always seemed overly cynical and simplistic to me.

    9. Re:All of history is biased by xdfgf · · Score: 0

      Well they got him up there first by simply not giving a shit if he survived.

      If he died no one would hear about it. If he survived it he would be the nations greatest hero.

    10. Re:All of history is biased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "winners write the history books" only applies when people are actually writing history books. Had the Trojans bothered, they would have come out with their own "official" histories, and maybe we would never have heard of Thucydides, and our understanding of this period in history would have been very different.

      Anyway, the Trojans were never as vindictive as modern victors - Athens recovered quite nicely after the war, and if it was never again as powerful, it was by no means a "defeated nation" in the same sense Germany or Japan were defeated nations after WWII.

    11. Re:All of history is biased by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      By driving their people like slaves for 40 years to achieve industrialization, and killing anyone who tried to resist (many tens of millions of them). By putting the output of all that forced work into particular national goals, like building a huge military and building a space program, while their people stood in line for hours to buy bread, let alone consumer luxuries.

      Yes, the Soviet space program was more advanced than the Americans in many ways. They did some very nice thing. But don't forget the price their people paid, involuntarily, to do it.

  21. BTW: the vikings did too by Interfacer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    didn't i read somwhere that the vikings and norsemen discovered america some few 100 years before columbus too? and i agree with the original subject: the only 'true' americans are the natives. all the rest: black, white or other are immigrants.

  22. It's not a big deal by _Ash_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to the article:

    When explorer Christopher Columbus landed in America in 1492, he was 72 years behind a Chinese expeditionary force, which had already made its way to the area.

    And although Captain James Cook was credited with discovering Australia for the British Empire in 1770, the Chinese had mapped the island continent 337 years earlier.

    Sailing in 1,000-foot-long ships with nine massive junk-style sails, the Chinese also circumnavigated the world a century before explorer Ferdinand Magellan's epic journey, and reached South America.


    The reason why Columbus, Cook and Magellan get the credit is because they were Europeans. And, in those days, Europe was the center of the world. Western civilization sprung from Europe so to speak. Think about it: most (both north and south) American citizens have ancestors in Europe, so do the citizens in Australia.

    For Europeans, America and Australia didn't exist until Columbus and Cook hit their shores (the Vikings did it before Columbus ofcourse but that was forgotten). After that, lots and lots of Europeans emigrated to America and Australia (most of them for economic reasons ofcourse). Contact between them and the homefront was never lost and therefore Columbus, Cook and Magellan deserve some credit. Maybe not for first discovering the continents but for putting them on the map.

    1. Re:It's not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, at that time Europe was not YET the center of the world. They got the credit NOW because Europian nations are now dominant in the World.

    2. Re:It's not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the Dutch "discovered" Australia before the British did...

      -p.

    3. Re:It's not a big deal by Jungleland · · Score: 1

      >No, at that time Europe was not YET the center of the world.
      I guess the Romans and Greeks could not be considered European then.
      James Cook was not even the first European on what is now Australian soil, Dirk Hartog landed there in 1616 on the north west coast of Oz.

    4. Re:It's not a big deal by skribe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, Cook wasn't even the first European to discover Australia. Dutchmen Willem Janszoon, from the Duyfken, mapped the top end in 1606, and Dirk Hartog landed on an island (now named after him) off the coast of Western Australia (WA) in 1616. In fact several Dutch 'explorers' visited WA in the years before the English laid claim to it and recently there has been suggestions that a Dutch colony was established in the North-West about one-hundred years before the English colony on the east-coast at Botany Bay (now Sydney).

      --
      Blog
    5. Re:It's not a big deal by _Ash_ · · Score: 1

      Your absolutely right. I forgot about that (which is quite dumb considering I'm from the Netherlands :) ).

    6. Re:It's not a big deal by G-funk · · Score: 2

      And although Captain James Cook was credited with discovering Australia for the British Empire in 1770, the Chinese had mapped the island continent 337 years earlier.

      So what? They took off, Cook sent his mates back to colonise... I think he deserves the credit, don't you? Or else we'd all be chinese (as opposed to just Sydney and Surfers' Paradise)

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    7. Re:It's not a big deal by Punto · · Score: 2
      The reason why Columbus, Cook and Magellan get the credit is because they were Europeans. And, in those days, Europe was the center of the world.

      Furthermore, the concept of 'discovery' revolves around the european culture. The people that were alredy living in america (the 'indians'; Colombus didn't know he was discovering a new world) didn't just appear in america out of thin air. They probably came from another continent (I'm no anthropologist, but I think Asia). And they obviously knew about America before Colombus or the Vikings.

      So 'discovery' just means they found something Europe didn't know about. The real discoverer would be Americo Vespucio, the guy who actually figured out that it was a new continent and not India.

      --

      --
      Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

    8. Re:It's not a big deal by QuimKnuckle · · Score: 1
      >>After that, lots and lots of Europeans emigrated to America and Australia (most of them for economic reasons ofcourse).

      Wasn't Australia a penal colony for a bit? I guess that would be forced emigration

      --
      Would you like a knuckle sandwich?
    9. Re:It's not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Norse weren't forgotten. But they thought that Greenland, Helluland, Markland, Vinland and Hvitmannasland were peninsulas of Europa, attached to Norway somewhere far north. The presence of the magnetic north pole near Disko Bay may have something to do with it. They didn't realize they had been living on a "new" continent for 500 years.

      Columbus sailed to Iceland to learn about all of this, presumable so that he could safely sail south of those lands on the way to the Spice Islands.

    10. Re:It's not a big deal by Deflatamouse! · · Score: 1

      And, in those days, Europe was the center of the world.

      In those days, Europe was only the center of the European world, and China was the center of the Chinese world...remember, the chinese name for china was (and still is) Middle Kingdom.

  23. Kewl by l0wland · · Score: 4, Funny

    Someday they'll dig up a Chinese skeleton in California, with a Viking-axe stuck in it's skull.

    --

    "Honey, I feel a certain distance between us..." "Really? A 31ms ping ain't that bad..."
    1. Re:Kewl by marijne · · Score: 1

      good one, but the Vikings never made it past "new found land" and I tink they were there around 800-900 AD or something like that

    2. Re:Kewl by leviramsey · · Score: 1
      Someday they'll dig up a Chinese skeleton in California, with a Viking-axe stuck in it's skull.

      And he'll be carrying Phoenician coins...

    3. Re:Kewl by l0wland · · Score: 1

      I gave up watching The Discovery Channel after the 3rd Shark-week within the same year. So this one's for you. ;-)

      --

      "Honey, I feel a certain distance between us..." "Really? A 31ms ping ain't that bad..."
    4. Re:Kewl by Mike+Connell · · Score: 2

      And they'll call him an American Indian (or native american or whatever the PC expression is), and destory the remains, as per Kennewick Man

    5. Re:Kewl by mpe · · Score: 2

      And they'll call him an American Indian (or native american or whatever the PC expression is), and destory the remains, as per Kennewick Man.

      What was done with Kennewick man isn't even remotly funny though. (Other than the obvious irony of being discovered on the "Columbia River".) About the only thing we can be sure of is that he was Neolithic.Which is thousands of years before any Vikings, Chinese or Hispanic sponsored Italians came anywhere near America.

    6. Re:Kewl by danro · · Score: 1

      This may shatter the old chinese saying:

      We invented gunpowder, and did not use it for war.
      We invented paper and did not use it for ??? (dont remember)
      We invented the compass, and did not discover America

      Discalimer: I have no clue if this is a real chinese saying, just something _I_ heard.
      But since you guys havent really gotten along in the past I guess it is possible =)

      --

      "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
    7. Re:Kewl by hson · · Score: 1

      Well, the settlers from Greenland travelled to Vinland (L'Anse-aux-Meadows) several times to get wood for building houses and ships. This continued for (almost) as long as there were any left (the last people disappeared in 1480-1500).

    8. Re:Kewl by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      ...and the native americans, fearing that their government benefits might be affected, will immediately claim they they are actually native americans and need to be re-interred as quickly as possible (despite the big horned helmet and firecrackers found beside the body).

      --
      -Styopa
    9. Re:Kewl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they'll say he's 100,000 years old, or some other ridiculous number.

    10. Re:Kewl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "we invented paper and did not use it for wiping our..."

    11. Re:Kewl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The egyptians invented paper (papyrus).

    12. Re:Kewl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My gawd! He looks like Picard!!!

      http://www.kennewick-man.com/gallery/art5.html

      ac

    13. Re:Kewl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, untrue on all except perhaps the last count.

      The Chinese did use gunpowder for war. They just didn't develop it to the extent Europeans later did.

      The Cinese used paper for writing, as paper money, and even had tissue paper for blowing their noses (don't know about toilet paper).

      I remain unconvinced they made it to North America, but the treasure ships did travel throughout asia and even reached the coast of east Africa.

    14. Re:Kewl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop pretending to be humorous or enlightened. You're just a bunch of facists. Simply rephrase 'Chinese' with 'Jews' and 'Viking' with 'Nazis' and all of you will roll your eyes in horror. Do you still see my point?

  24. Menzies by hoggy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is almost completely off-topic, but I'm bored and I thought I'd give you a Fun Fact:

    "Menzies" is an old scots name and was originally pronounced "Mingies" (soft, throaty "ng"). Still is pronounced that way in Scotland sometimes.

    1. Re:Menzies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that unusual really. Menzies Campbell, the British MP pronounces his name like this. He's quite often found on TV and Radio.

  25. read about that in Scientific American by dario_moreno · · Score: 1

    some time ago. The author stated that tea
    made this possible, as opposed to alcohol
    for europeans, because water would not
    remain drinkable without it. But due
    to lack of demographic pressure, no need
    for gold or trade, the Chinese did not
    exploit those new lands. They even had some
    contacts with the Aztecs.

    Reminds me of several "Civilization" games
    on the real world map...

    --
    Google passes Turing test : see my journal
    1. Re:read about that in Scientific American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China has suffered demographic pressure for thousands of years. For most of history they supported almost as large a population as the land and farming technology could possibly support.

    2. Re:read about that in Scientific American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The author stated that tea
      made this possible, as opposed to alcohol
      for europeans, because water would not
      remain drinkable without it.

      ? What happened to the water in the absence of tea?

  26. Sure, but... by bentini · · Score: 2

    I'm sure that this is research of the highest caliber. And more importantly, it's the final nail in the coffin for nay-sayers who've refused to believe this. But the headline is misleading. The important point is not that Chinese discovered America, but that we can prove that the Chinese discovered America.
    What everyone else has been trying to say, but stumbling across is that, "When Columbus discovered America, it stayed discovered."

    1. Re:Sure, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Columbus discovered America, it stayed discovered.

      Shame about that.

    2. Re:Sure, but... by leviramsey · · Score: 1
      but that we can prove that the Chinese discovered America.

      It's pretty well accepted that the Vikings attempted to colonize North America.

      One of the more interesting things, as I get slightly offtopic, is to look at the state of the world in the year 1002. The Arabs, the Chinese, and the Japanese were the superpowers, along with the Aztecs and Incas (if such a term can be used). Europe was the equivalent of a third world continent. I mean, a fading power, the Vikings had them on their knees (why's it called Normandy?).

      What happened? The Chinese looked inwards and grew static. The Japanese and Arabs each grew complacent. The Europeans got themselves out of the rut and developed new methods of thought (largely by embracing and extending Arab/Asian thought. Then they got lucky in the Western Hemisphere. The huge economic advantage gained through the exploitation of the Americas caused growth to accelerate. Now a European/North American axis effectively runs the show (the Japanese have, in a possibly more amazing story, joined this axis). China is a borderline third world nation. The formerly Arab world is far behind. The Aztecs and Incas were effectively wiped off the map.

      If that's what the last 10^3 years were like, imagine what the world order will be in 3002...

      Okay, I'll shut up now...

    3. Re:Sure, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is rubish. The rise of Europe was not founded on the discovery of America. Europe surpassed the rest of the world in technology and militrary power around 1500. That was too early for Colombus discovery to have any impact on Europe. The foundation for this lead was laid in medeval times.

      Unlike the middel east and China, Europe was no one great empire but many smaller that competed against each other fierchly. That made each european state more competetiv and open to new ideas why other great empires in the world stagnated because they had no enemies that were strong enough to challenge them in any way.

    4. Re:Sure, but... by mazachan · · Score: 1

      Actually, I wouldn't say that the Japanese grew complacent. It is commonly believed that the Alaskan Eskimos came from Japan and the Kennewick man, as someone mentioned earlier, might have too.. here

    5. Re:Sure, but... by markmoss · · Score: 2

      While the competition between lords, kinglets, and city-states certainly helped Europe advance, my hypothesis is that the Black Plague in the 14th century actually kicked off industrialization and the age of exploration. It concentrated wealth (by inheritance) and it caused a considerable shortage of labor. I very much doubt that it's a coincidence that Europeans started using sailing ships much more just about the time the Plague killed most of the galley slaves. And although the ancient Egyptians had explored widely with what were basically large galleys, this was done with tax money. To keep the voyaging going, you have to make money off of trade, and it isn't profitable at longer distances if you've got to feed a lot of rowers to haul a small cargo. So although Lief Ericson could cross the atlantic in a big rowboat with one auxiliary sail, it took better sailing ships to make it profitable to keep going, and these weren't developed in the west until after the Plague. (I think the Chinese were capable of building good ships, but the next emperor became scared of the consequences of bringing in new ideas along with far-ranging trade, so the big ships were destroyed. This is where the competing petty countries of Europe comes in -- some rulers could get scared and pull back, but their neighbors would grab the new opportunities and surpass them.)

      With all the ill effects of the industrial revolution, it has made the average 21st century westerner richer than a medieval king, and it seems to have started with some medieval blacksmith hooking up his bellows to a waterwheel -- maybe because the big dumb men he hired to pump the bellows had died of the plague.
      In any case, with the labor shortage following the plague, the larger iron-working shops began using waterpowered blowers. Originally this was just a replacement for the least skilled workers, but the new blowers could be much more powerful and this transformed iron-making within two centuries. The results of this first showed up in warfare (stronger armor and crossbows to penetrate it, then cannon, bigger cannon, and muskets in the hands of peasant levies that could barely afford iron spear-tips before), but it also gave butchers and barbers better blades, carpenters better saws and nails instead of pegs, etc. Additionally, the iron plants found ways of linking water power to raise and drop sledgehammers, reducing their need of big unskilled men for the early, crude stages of forging. This idea was then extended to run textile equipment, sawmills, etc. And finally, the need to locate at the waterpower led to larger shops and the first factories.

    6. Re:Sure, but... by closedpegasus · · Score: 1

      Right. Comlumbus was not the first to discover america. He was the last to discover america.

  27. How... by garethwi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...do you discover a country when there are already people living there?

    1. Re:How... by Mike+Connell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And by the same logic, I guess we will never discover civilisations on other planets (how can we 'discover' it when there are already aliens living there?)

      How could Biham and Shamir 'discover' differential cryptoanalis when the NSA already knew about it?

      How could my cat 'discover' that the computer was warm when I already knew about it?

      How can I discover the joy of using Python when lots of other people already experience it?

      Maybe it's time to crack open a dictionary, and 'discover' what 'discover' really means!

    2. Re:How... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      "What you mean you discover us? *We* discover *you*!"

      "*You* discovered *us*?"

      "We discover you on beach here. Is all how you look at it."

      "Oh yeah, never thought of that..."

      Chris Mattern

    3. Re:How... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same way you claim you're a "Native American" when all you did was get here before the others.

      We're ALL immigrants if you go back far enough.

      Except for those who were born here: they're native Americans.

    4. Re:How... by Gulik · · Score: 1

      ...do you discover a country when there are already people living there?

      I think Eddie Izzard summarized the process pretty well:

      "I claim India for Britain."
      "You can't claim us -- there's 500 million of us, this is our country!"
      "Do you have a flag?"

    5. Re:How... by Teun · · Score: 2
      An example of discovery:
      Take a hammer in your favourite hand,
      Put your other hand on the table.
      Hit the hand on the table with the hammer.

      You've just discovered pain....
      But does that mean it did not exist before?

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    6. Re:How... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The civilized world discovered a non-civilized world.

    7. Re:How... by itfor · · Score: 1
      ...do you discover a country when there are already people living there?

      I think the answer is on this big internet message board that I discovered the other day. I'll tell you how to get there, but forever more, it shall be known as Itforica, as in "what's itfor?" a question everyone asks... Anyway, you might ask, how can one "discover" a big internet message board, when there are already people there... Let's not get recursive.

    8. Re:How... by cooperj72 · · Score: 1
      ...do you discover a country when there are already people living there?

      The same way people claim first post on /.
      You just have to say you were first. Pretend the others don't exist.

      -J

    9. Re:How... by Decimal+Dave · · Score: 1

      I'm sure if we claim to "discover" life on, say, Mars then someone will invariably find proof that the Vikings and Chinese had already done this. They even wouldn't have had to sail there...an asteroid containg evidence of life as part of an ancient artifact would be probably enough.

      --

      "Leave the strategizing to those of us with planet-sized brains." -Tycho
  28. "Too US-centric" by Skwirl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I dislike cries of "too US-centric" as much as the next Yankee, but come on, the story here isn't that they discovered the American continent first. The wow-that's-incredible part of the story is the idea that Chinese explorers circumnavigated the globe 100 years before Magellan's voyage.

    As it has been pointed out, lots of people beat Columbus to the New World, (Vikings and Native Americans to name a couple.) but going all the way around the world is something of an accomplishment. Incidentally, when you sail around the world you're bound to bump into the American continent anyways.

    1. Re:"Too US-centric" by marijne · · Score: 1

      accept for those people who accidentally hit Easter iland and stayed there ;-)

    2. Re:"Too US-centric" by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      While everyone is ooh-ing and ahh-ing at this (remarkable) accomplishment, doesn't this simply highlight how ABSURD it was that the "Middle Kingdom" essentially turned it's back on the world thereafter?

      If I were the Chinese, I'd be a little proud, but a lot embarrassed. Kind of like finding out your uncle invented sustainable tabletop fusion 50 years ago, and has been using it since then to run his toaster and heating pad.

      --
      -Styopa
    3. Re:"Too US-centric" by leviramsey · · Score: 1

      I had an uncle who invented a fruity soda. He called it 5-Up. It bombed. He tried a new formula and called it 6-Up. It bombed. He gave up after that....

    4. Re:"Too US-centric" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chinese discovered the Prime Directive way before Star Fleet...

    5. Re:"Too US-centric" by Stonehand · · Score: 2

      It's a warning against complacency, hubris and an excessively backwards-looking attitude.

      1 -- At some point, they pretty much decided that they had everything they needed, refusing forms of payment except silver... at least, until the British successfully created a demand for opium.

      2 -- Part of that was a belief that they were better than everybody else, reinforced by a) bad conception of the world and other civillizations, and b) their immediate neighbors being at a similar or worse level, development-wise.

      3 -- Combine all that with the rise of Kung Fu-Tze's stability-minded philosophy and a Civil Service whose examinations were largely based on classics and traditions instead of practicals and analytical thinking, and you get a recipe for stagnation on a national scale.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    6. Re:"Too US-centric" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Acutlaly, you opened the floor for a question I have always had. I'm from Uruguay, and in South America, the word "America" means the entire continent, which is then subidivided into North, Central, and South.

      Now, I know in English, America is the United States, but Americans are always saying "Columbus discovered America, blsh blsh". Didn't he land on Hispaniola in 1492? I think he only touched Florida about some 8 years later. Well, it's a doubt I've always had.

    7. Re:"Too US-centric" by sean23007 · · Score: 2

      It's too bad that in their circumnavigation of the globe they did not bother to venture north to Europe on the way. Had they done this, the Chinese guy who pulled it off would be in the history books instead of Magellan, and the West and the East would have been more closely linked (and in closer competition) when it comes to seafaring. Who knows what effect this might have had on the development of the world.

      Then again, had they made the side trip to Europe and revealed their intention, the idiots who were around back then probably would have just sunk their ships and killed the heathens. So maybe keeping quiet was a smart move...

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    8. Re:"Too US-centric" by Allasard · · Score: 1

      We Americans use the name "America" interchangably: for either the 2 continents (North and South); or for a shorter way of saying "United States of America." Which is much too long to use in everyday speech. It's not that we consider ourselves the only important people in the hemisphere, it's just a short form of USofA.

      So, when we say "Columbus discovered America," we mean he discovered all the American continents collectively. (a.k.a. this hemisphere)

      Did Columbus even reach Florida? I thought he just made a few trips to the Caribbean islands anyway, and maybe Venezuela...

    9. Re:"Too US-centric" by dukeblue219 · · Score: 1

      While that is a very interesting technological achievment of the Chinese, it does not take away any of the value of Magellan's voyage. At that point in history the European world had no knowledge of the Chinese expedition, so Magellan made the first journey as far as they knew.

      Columbus is often viewed in the same manner, that he now doesnt matter because he didn't "discover" America. Actually, he did discover America. He, and millions of Europeans, didn't know it was there, so he was the person who opened America for European colonization.

      --
      -Ted http://www.freemathhelp.com/
  29. Vikings by proxybyproxy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Time Europe article titled The Amazing Vikings. It was part of a feature Time did two years ago.

    In addition to going to America 500 years before Columbus, they also did trades all the way down in Irak and formed the worlds oldest parliament.

    And it seems they did mushrooms to go beserk. Cool guys.

    --

    Hurra for Knark!
    1. Re:Vikings by leviramsey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Vikings rule! That's all I can say!

      Thor decides he wants some earth loving. So he turns himself into a dashing young human warrior. He picks up this beautiful princess and they have a wild night. The next morning, Thor decides to reveal himself. "I am Thor," he says. "You're thor," the princess replies, "I'm tho thor, I don't think I can pith."

    2. Re:Vikings by Spoing · · Score: 1
      And it seems they did mushrooms [totse.com] to go beserk. Cool guys.

      Well, I like Norg and Norwegians in general. Smart, good looking, and easy to talk and get along with.

      Having said that, it's a Very Good Thing that they have high taxes on boose. Whenever they visit the US or take a cruise into international waters, the first thing they do is drink like fish, close the bars down, and get very Viking-like.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    3. Re:Vikings by bughunter · · Score: 2
      And it seems they did mushrooms [totse.com] to go beserk. Cool guys.

      Not only that, but the way they did them is remarkable too... it seems that the mushrooms they ate are also toxic, but the psychoactive component is not metabolized -- it is filtered out by the kidneys unchanged.

      I presume you can see where this is going... it is told that a tribe's strongest warrior would eat the mushrooms and endure the brunt of the toxic effects, and the rest of the warriors would dose up on his urine before a good plundering.

      I can only speculate on how this discovery was made: "Hey, I know, let's give it to Olag - he's strong as a bull! Then we'll drink his bodily wastes and go on a murderous rampage!" Medieval male bonding at it's finest...

      I've also read fictional accounts where the women of the tribe were forced to eat the mushrooms, and the men drank their urine. Whether this has any basis in fact is debateable, but I'd be a lot more inclined to drink my wives' or daughters' micturations than that of Olag the Ugly. (Heck, I personally have had more than one girlfriend who... umm, never mind.)

      So, the moral of the story is that the next time you dose up for a Phish/Crowes/Other Ones concert, you should save your piss! I recommend the "Stadium Buddy."

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    4. Re:Vikings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your daughter?? Dude, sick.

  30. Strange Media Coverage by green.vervet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The history books are always slow to change. We know, for instance, that Basque fishermen fished the Grand Banks (off Newfoundland) for at least a hundred years before Columbus sailed. It was a well-kept secret, but it was often argued that Columbus' wife (who was Basque) let him in on the secret. The Viking settlement on Newfoundland lasted a long time, so there was never much of a hiatus in contact between Europe and North America. Indications of trade with Asia on the West Coast of North America are long-standing - Chinese goods reached as far as Mexico. If this presentation is true (and it would be interesting to see what he is actually presenting, as opposed to what is reported) it would be welcome just as a response to those historians who speculate, what would have happened if zheng he had not stopped at East Africa and gone on to Europe? Would we all be speaking Chinese? The answer would be nothing, and no (or not yet, anyway). The difference between the two voyages of discovery was that for the Chinese, their motive was altruistic: to discover the world and share their civilization with others. For the Europeans, their motive was greed. The difference being, when discovery was starting to bankrupt the government in China it was first on the cutback list. Greed showed to be a more durable basis for exploration than altruism.

    1. Re:Strange Media Coverage by gutigre · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The difference between the two voyages of discovery was that for the Chinese, their motive was altruistic: to discover the world and share their civilization with others. For the Europeans, their motive was greed.

      You really think the Chinese emperors were such good, moral people? No, their interests were just as strongly economic, but America simply contained nothing China needed or wanted. While Spaniards and Portuguese were scouring the Americas in search of silver and gold (not by coincidence, Columbus' journey was inspired by Marco Polo's tale of imperial China), the Chinese were bullying smaller states around the Indian Ocean rim into paying tribute. America, lacking in precious minerals and fragrant herbs, simply was of no interest to the Chinese. It was of interest, though, to a growing European population that demanded space and raw materials.

      We remember Columbus better than any Chinese explorer for the same reason that we remember Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the telephone, though Elisha Gray had build one earlier (but missed Bell's patent by a few hours).

    2. Re:Strange Media Coverage by green.vervet · · Score: 1

      They would be more successful if they were better at bullying tribute than they were. Unfortunately, Imperial tribute system was reciprocal, and the fact that the tribute system actually cost the imperial government money was a major factor in closing China off from trade.

    3. Re:Strange Media Coverage by droid_rage · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that you mention history books. When I took the required History of California class in grade school (many, many years ago), the book mentioned that Spanish explorers found Chinese goods such as blankets and pottery in the posession of the indigenous peoples.

    4. Re:Strange Media Coverage by geekoid · · Score: 2

      when discovery was starting to bankrupt the government in China it was first on the cutback list.
      Kind of like NASA.

      it could also be argue that the Chinese decided that the potential wealth didn't out way the cost.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Strange Media Coverage by NuShrike · · Score: 1

      So going by this logic, the Federation of Planets could not exist. Going where no man (one) has gone before doesn't bring home the bacon.

      Instead, it's the money grubbing Ferengi who would write the history books, and end up ruling an Imperialist-like empire in the Alpha quadrant next to the Klingon and the Romulans? :)

    6. Re:Strange Media Coverage by Reziac · · Score: 2

      If the Chinese motives were "altruistic", please explain their "treasure ships".

      Exploration seldom happens for its own sake. It usually is done to seek something to bring home, exploit, conquer (which is done to increase wealth, not just from megalomania), or whatever. That's why the next wave usually involves an army.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:Strange Media Coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chinese motives were not altruistic, but it wasn't greed exactly either. The Chinese treasure ships carried gifts from the Chinese emperor to the various people that Zheng Ho would encounter on his exploration trips. For the Emperor, these trips were to be used to show off his fabulous wealth and power, to demonstrate his own greatness, and to stoke his own ego. This is a common theme in great historical Chinese undertakings. The Great Wall is another example, it was really not built for defense reasons, it was built to demonstrate the emperor's power.

    8. Re:Strange Media Coverage by Reziac · · Score: 2

      True, but great rulers (or sometimes just those with a lot of power and wealth who want to be perceived as great) always do that sort of thing. It's why we have structures like the Washington Monument and the cathedrals of Rome. Portable wealth can be shown around a bit more, of course, and it never hurts to give some of it to people whom you want to favourably impress. Of course if you give away too much, you wind up broke. :)

      I think trying to delineate any such mission as resulting from "altruism" or "greed" is misleading in itself. Neither is wholly accurate, as human motivations are seldom that discrete.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    9. Re:Strange Media Coverage by ender81b · · Score: 2

      Actually, recent evidence suggest that the basque fisherman might have gotten to the great banks around 900-1000 A.D b/c they where following the cod migrations.

      BTW, Cod, which drew the fisherman to the great banks, was once so plentiful you could 'walk across the N.atlantic on their backs.' Now, cod fishing is banned b/c of massive overfishing.

    10. Re:Strange Media Coverage by andrewski · · Score: 1

      The mysterious disappearance of the Viking settlement on Newfie is no mystery at all. In Canada and Minnesota, there was a group of 'native americans' that had red and blond hair, and blue and green eyes, called the hokoham. They lived in neatly walled (and sometimes moated) villages with streets and alleys, farmed in fields, and were a lot more european than most natives. These people probably decided to leave Newfie (which isn't that fertile of an environment) and strike out southwest after either an expedition or conversations with other natives.

      This is interesting, but so are the numerous tribes that spoke vulgar latin, hebrew, posessed roman coins, etc. There is one site in northern MN that was a copper mine 4,000 years ago!!! some 500000 tons of copper ore were mined and smelted there, formed into ingots (rectangular with inwardly-curving sides and handles at the 4 corners) called 'deer-hides' and shipped away. Interestingly enough, people in the middle east shaped their copper into identical shaped and even called them 'sheep-hides'.

      Face it, we don't knowwho discovered america, but evidence is there that says that the chinese were relative latecomers.

    11. Re:Strange Media Coverage by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1

      Yep. But they still couldn't have really been called altruistic. They were just greedy for a different benefit: the admiration of all the lesser peoples of the earth. It was still self-serving. Not that there's anything particularly bad about that, but there it is.

    12. Re:Strange Media Coverage by keithso · · Score: 1

      Actually I've heard an interesting conspiracy theory when I did my Year 9 Chinese History back when I was in Hong Kong.

      The ruling emperor at that time, whose name I forgot, was the brother of previous emperor. The ruling emperor lauched a coup using his strong military forces based near Beijing intended to defend against the northern tribes. After his coup was successful and he entered the capital, Nanjing, the then dethroned emperor went missing and rumour has it that he escaped on a boat. So the new emperor sent Zheng He off to sail in order to find the emperor's brother and ``finish the job''.

      I have no idea about the historical accuracy of this story.

      --
      Keith So GnuPG fingerprint = 168F 874B 4E26 DCA8 B8BF 57F4 80F9 412E F82B AE4C
    13. Re:Strange Media Coverage by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Could be perfectly true -- it sounds like the sort of thing that would happen after a coup, especially if the old ruler had a threatening quantity of popular support.

      I'm also reminded of the old European system of getting rid of political gadflies by sending them off to some "prestigious" post overseas. Doubtless they weren't the only ones to think of that!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  31. geee by Iamthefallen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And I thought the Native Americans, aka Indians would have discovered it since they lived there, silly me!

    The chinese couldn't have discovered it first, per our definition Discovering means "found and claimed by a white person with european descent".

    --
    Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
    1. Re:geee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, they were to busy stashing up all their gold so the Spanish would have something to raid...

    2. Re:geee by Shelled · · Score: 1
      There were no Native Americans when the continent was first discovered. Only after thousands of years of settlement did the original nomads become Native Americans. So yes, it's quite possible North America was ultimately dicovered by the northern Chinese.

    3. Re:geee by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      Discovering means "found and claimed by a white person with european descent

      Ahh, don't you just love Liberal cynicism? Discover means to take notice of something that you had previously not known about. So Columbus DID discover something. And so did the Vikings. And the ones you call "Native Americans." And possibly the Chinese as well, it seems.

  32. *Everybody* discovered America befoer Columbus... by Numen · · Score: 1

    The Celts, the Scandanavians, and now the Chinese... and surely to god the native Indians who got there from Asia.

    Culture X, discovered America before Columbus is redundant... lets just say Columbus didnt discover America and leave it at that.

  33. America doesn't even exist. by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Funny

    All these films about things that happen in America are just a myth. The country doesn't exist. It's just a children's story, like Atlantis. There is no mythical continent across the atlantic. Think about it. If there really is a country there, then surely if you stood at the west coast of Ireland you would be able to see it. You can't. If you can't see something that you're looking at directly then it isn't there.

    I'm sure some people will disagree with me. Well, I ask you this - Have you been there? Have you actually seen this place? Why did nobody ever mention it until really quite recently? And I mean the past 100 years or so. I challenge anyone to find a resource more recent than 1900 that indicates that the place exists.

    It was clearly an invention of European governments to use as an excuse to devalue their currencies in the 1920's. They didn't want to blame themselves, so they invented another country to blame.

    Face it. America is a ridiculous liberal myth.

    1. Re:America doesn't even exist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice troll :P

      surely if you stood at the east coast of england you would be able to see the whole european continent. europe must not exist!

    2. Re:America doesn't even exist. by Varris · · Score: 1

      Would this also mean that bush doesn't exist? Best news i heard in months.

    3. Re:America doesn't even exist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't see us from Afghanistan, either, but I think THEY believe we exist!

    4. Re:America doesn't even exist. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Too bad they don't exist then isn't it. Ever been there? Do you know anyone there? I bet you believe anything you see on TV

    5. Re:America doesn't even exist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If there really is a country there, then surely if you stood at the west coast of Ireland you would be able to see it.

      Surely if you stood at the east coast of england you would be able to see the whole european continent. europe must not exist!

      I'll be damned! I don't see either of them. It's all a fake. There's just this one (OK, two) islands. All the rest is just fairie tales.
      All those ships that sail too and fro are fakes, All those TV pictures are fakes from Hollywood (wait a minute, Hollywood is fake too) and those bombers from the "mainland" that pounded London during WWII were really RAF in disguise. Those Evil Bastards! We bombed ourselves!

    6. Re:America doesn't even exist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an american of afghani decent, so the unfortunate consequence and evidence of these mythical places is me

    7. Re:America doesn't even exist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you've got it backwards.
      Europe is a myth to describe explain where cheese comes from.

  34. Yes, and ... by SimonK · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Henry Sinclair beat the Chinese by another 30 years. When he got there he found people in Nova Scotia speaking a Celtic dialect, He, in turn, was directed there by a couple of Venetians. The Vikings beat him by a few hundred years, and there is plenty of evidence that European fishermen had been sailing across the Atlantic pretty much all through history.

    The only thing that makes Columbus different is that by the time he got there the mechanisms and motivation to publicise the discovery and start the process of conquest and colonisation were in place.

    1. Re:Yes, and ... by leviramsey · · Score: 1

      Is this a Sinclair of Rosslyn?

      If so, then the Templar connection is very interesting....

    2. Re:Yes, and ... by Teun · · Score: 2
      people in Nova Scotia speaking a Celtic dialect

      That would be curious, with Vikings sooner being of Germanic than of Celtic decend.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    3. Re:Yes, and ... by welshdave · · Score: 1

      I think any Celtic language in North America can be blamed on Prince Madoc (although he'd heard about American from Viking tales).

    4. Re:Yes, and ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh ?

      (1) Irish people claim to have "discovered" America too, several centuries before the Vikings. In fact, the Vikings heard about land to the west from the Irish.

      Icelandic people have been genetically matched to both Viking and Irish populations.

      (2) The Vikings and Irish intermingled thoroughly in all costal regions of Ireland, so even a nominally "Viking" fleet of ships could have a large Celtic contingent, and "Vikings" born in Dublin (of which there were several tens of thousands, at least) might well have been speaking a dialect mixture of Norse and Irish.

    5. Re:Yes, and ... by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Exactly -- and colonization succeeds when you have a sufficiently large surplus population base, which the world had lacked up til that point. A lot of early colonies failed to "take" simply due to an insufficient influx of warm bodies to counter the inevitable attrition due to war, disease, famine, defection, or whatever.

      And if you want to go back a bit further, there is some evidence that the ancient Phoenicans may have circumnavigated and mapped much of the globe -- several thousand years ago.

      Imagine the scramble to drive the "first post" :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  35. Waiting for americans by chefren · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great! Now we are just waiting for (north) americans to discover the rest of the world!

    1. Re:Waiting for americans by fruey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Piri Reis drew an accurate map of the globe way before then, if we are to believe Von Daniken's books and research previous.

      We can't blame the Chinese for the bastardisation of European Culture that happened in America, we CAN blame Columbus. So give him the credit. (Flame me if you like, Americans).

      We can't blame whoever it was who cultivated tobacco since time immemorial, we can blame Walter Raleigh for bringing it back to Elizabeth I and making it trendy. Did he "discover" tobacco? NO. But in British history, he gets a lot of credit for bringing stuff back, when all he was doing was trying to impress the queen.

      We could go on and on.

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    2. Re:Waiting for americans by NTSwerver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Piri Reis drew an accurate map of the globe way before then

      This map was drawn by consulting much more ancient sources, rather than being drawn by Reis himself. Apparently it accurately mapped the coastline of Antarctica which has been completely covered in ice since before the Egyptian Pyramids were built. We know that the mapping of Antarctica's coastline is accurate thanks to seismic surveys that were carried out last century. Spooky eh?

      --
      -----------------------
      Moderator's essentials
    3. Re:Waiting for americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You better sit down. We all know how they think the US is the world!

    4. Re:Waiting for americans by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      If I could mod you up further I would. ROFLMAO and all that :-)

    5. Re:Waiting for americans by geekoid · · Score: 2

      SInce we keep getting better and better and finding reasons to send well armed "discoverers" around the world, you'll be "discovered" the same way the Native americans where discovered. With plague and bulllets.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Waiting for americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was Ambrose Bierce who said:

      "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography"

    7. Re:Waiting for americans by WWWWolf · · Score: 2

      Actually, most people cite the Buache Map (also shown in the images of the site you mentioned) as the example of "hey, they made maps that showed subglacial Antarctica in 1700s!"... but Buache himself didn't know of that, he specifically wrote to the corner of the map, "We saw some Pænguins and those Glacier things and some pretty nasty Icebergs", but since he wrote that in French instead of English, most people thought he was way ahead of time when he (supposedly) published a map of Antarctica without ice.

      Pretty good the theorists are wrong. Otherwise, New Zealand would be under the ice, too. =)

    8. Re:Waiting for americans by scorppete · · Score: 1

      We know where the rest of world is. Thank you for your comment. The fact of the matter is that we couldn't care less.

    9. Re:Waiting for americans by nomadic · · Score: 2

      Piri Reis drew an accurate map of the globe way before then, if we are to believe Von Daniken's books and research previous.

      Approach von Daniken's books very, very suspiciously.

  36. Re:My experiences in China by -douggy · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, you've been to LA recently :o) *ducks*

  37. Umm...what about the Native Americans by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It would seem to me that the "Native Americans" were the ones to first "discover" America.

    Moreover, they also peacefully inhabited the land and had a continental population that was close to that of Europe around 19th century. But we killed most of them, so they don't count right? At least they can live in slums and on their native casinos now.

    Why do white people always think they come first?

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    1. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 5, Insightful

      peacefully inhabited the land!?
      Perhaps you should base your ideas about Native Americans on more than Disney's Pocohontas.
      I'll give you a hint. There were a lot of different tribes. Some farmed, some hunted, some made human sacrifices, some raided other tribes, murdering, raping, etc. Just like most humans.
      I am not arguing that what happened to the Native Americans was not tragic. But to claim that the Native Americans were pacifists to make your point is sheer idiocy.
      A good book exploring some of the reasons the Europeans annihilated the Native Americans is, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", by Jared Diamond. It contains some very interesting theories about the availability of domesticable animals and crops and what a profound influence it had on the development of societies.

    2. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by Sabriel · · Score: 2
      I know what they say about lies, damned lies and statistics. Check this out anyway, draw your own whatevers.

      http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm

      Excerpt:
      "That's why I was so startled to discover that there is absolutely no pattern to the chart. If I had simply picked 25 countries out of a hat, I could not have gotten a more diverse spread than we've got here. We've got rich countries and poor countries; industrial and agrarian; big and small. We've got people of all colors -- white, black, yellow and brown -- widely represented among both the slaughterers and the slaughterees. We've got Christians, Moslems, Buddhists and Atheists all butchering one another in the name of their various gods or lack thereof. Among the perpetrators, we've got political leanings of the left, right and middle; some are monarchies; some are dictatorships and some are even democracies. We've got innocent victims invaded by big, bad neighbors, and we've got plenty of countries who brought it on themselves, sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind. Go on -- take a third look. Find any type of country that is not represented among the agents of a major blooding, and probably the only reason for that is that there aren't that many countries in that category to begin with (There are no Hindu or Jewish countries on the chart, but then, there's only one of each on the whole planet, and they're both waiting in the wings among the next 25.).

      In a way, it's rather disheartening to realize that we can't smugly blame the brutality of the century on the Communists, or the imperialists, or the Moslem fundamentalists, or the godless. Every major category of human has done it's share to boost the body count, so replacing, say, Moslem rulers with Christian rulers, or white rulers with black rulers, is not going to change it at all."

      Read and weep.

    3. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by Erik+from+Breda · · Score: 1

      Hmm, if you are native american, you are born there. So it could be the parents of the first native americans that discovered America, but there could have been people before that (who did not procreate in America, but went home after setting foot on the continent).

    4. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

      "But to claim that the Native Americans were pacifists to make your point is sheer idiocy."

      Many (should I jump to conclusions and say "most"?) were, and I doubt even the worst could come close to what could only be described as the genocide ("ethnic cleansing"?) that all forms of Europeans visited on native peoples. It's not like all the native americans went over to Europe, slaughtered Europeans, banned and destroyed their cultures and languages and left them in ghettos scrabbling over the crumbs from the dominant society. Yes I realize that it is a Romantic notion itself to portray native americans as such helpless people, but the truth is many (again, should I say "majority"?) have been conquered and left destitute in utter heart breaking cruelty.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    5. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't Kevin Costner discover Native Americans?

    6. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Mr. "Aqua OS X" - are you aware that naming yourself after a fucking UI is about as geeky as cuddling up with a set of Amiga ROM Kernel Manuals?

      Come here so I can beat you, you ass.

    7. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many (should I jump to conclusions and say "most"?) were

      You're wrong. Go look it up.

      It's naive to think that this doesn't happen everywhere. Every single country, spot of land, and primative society is, was, and will be killing each other for the forseeable future. Not that it's right, but America is no different than anywhere else.

    8. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by pdeweese · · Score: 1

      Not to mention slavery and impressing soldiers. Even a few white soldiers are documented as having become impressed into indian tribes as soldiers. Some of them eventually led normal lives, having children and families(after being abused for a year or so).

    9. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by Gulthek · · Score: 2, Informative

      Should you? I'm glad you asked those questions in parantheses, I suggest you find some good books on the subject. Try King Phillip's War by Drake, and Cherokee Removal by Perdue for starters.

      You should take class about Native American societies, or at least read an authoritative work on the subject. The Iroquois people did indeed participate in the kind of 'genetic cleansing' that Europeans were also guilty of - granted both cleansings were directly or indirectly the result of viral warfare.

      Let me explain, when European explorers started to settle and explore in North America they brought diseases with them that the Native population had been isolated from for centuries, if not millenia. These diseases wreaked tremendous havoc on the Natives - killing up 98% of the population! Often these deaths would occur after explorers (or a ship with an infected crewman sailing up the Ohio river) had past. When subsequent settlers would follow they would find the land almost empty of Natives, this led to the rise of the "virgin land" myth that claimed that the New World was underused, practically devoid of a Native population, and was ripe for the picking. Even the Puritans who settled in what would become New England took the fact that Native villages whose former population was dead in their streets was a sign from God that he was clearing out the country for his believers.

      Ok ok, enough digressing. Now, The Iroquois people had a particular empassioned ritual called a Mourning War. When a member of their tribe was killed they would enter into this war against the tribe that had killed their citizen and exact retribution - sometimes capturing a member of the opposing tribe to serve as a substitute for the fallen, sometimes killing the one that had killed their person, or just killing someone in the opposing tribe.

      When the Iroquois tribe was slaughtered by smallpox and other nasty diseases, the tribe entered into a Mourning War out of grief and loss and indiscriminately slaughtered their neighboring tribes until King Phillip's War disrupted the region.
      Now take a look at a South Carolinian tribe (sorry, I don't recall their name) - they captured and made slaves of tribes to the south and southwest, later making a business out of it by selling slaves to the Europeans.

      None of this is to excuse the Europeans, but the relationship between the multitude of Native Tribes and the differing nationalities of the Europeans was MUCH more complicated than an exploiter/exploited dichotomy. esult of viral warfare. Let me explain, when European explorers started to settle and explore in North America they brought diseases with them that the Native population had been isolated from for centuries, if not millenia. These diseases wreaked tremendous havoc on the Natives - killing up 98% of the population! Often these deaths would occur after explorers (or a ship with an infected crewman sailing up the Ohio river) had past. When subsequent settlers would follow they would find the land almost empty of Natives, this led to the rise of the "virgin land" myth that claimed that the New World was underused, practically devoid of a Native population, and was ripe for the picking. Even the Puritans who settled in what would become New England took the fact that Native villages whose former population was dead in their streets was a sign from God that he was clearing out the country for his believers.

      Ok ok, enough digressing. Now, The Iroquois people had a particular empassioned ritual called a Mourning War. When a member of their tribe was killed they would enter into this war against the tribe that had killed their citizen and exact retribution - sometimes capturing a member of the opposing tribe to serve as a substitute for the fallen, sometimes killing the one that had killed their person, or just killing someone in the opposing tribe.
      When the Iroquois tribe was slaughtered by smallpox and other nasty diseases, the tribe entered into a Mourning War out of grief and loss and indiscriminately slaughtered their neighboring tribes until King Phillip's War disrupted the region.
      Now take a look at a South Carolinian tribe (sorry, I don't recall their name) - they captured and made slaves of tribes to the south and southwest, later making a business out of it by selling slaves to the Europeans.
      None of this is to excuse the Europeans, but the relationship between the multitude of Native Tribes and the differing nationalities of the Europeans was MUCH more complicated than an exploiter/exploited dichotomy. Though in some cases, like the Cherokee removal of the 1830's, that relationship is practically right on. You just can't speak of the Native population as a cohesive group with one ideology, method of governing, culture, etc. Before the coming of Europeans there were 12,000 languages spoken in North America that we know of, of course the sound, grammer, and vocabulary of practically all of those languages is now, sadly, lost to us. The Tribes of North America were as, or more, varied than the countries of Europe (which, I assume, you already know not to group as one culture even though you seemed to indicate such in your posting).

    10. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by IanA · · Score: 1

      It would seem to me that 'discover' is used in reference to the OLD WORLD 'discover'ing what would become the NEW WORLD, not showing who was the first there. I think you knew that, and it was quite predictable what your post would (mistakenly) and ignorantly state. You are wrong.

      Oi, and I think possibly the Native Americans: attacked Europeans, had wars between themselves, and by the sources I think to be reliable did not have a population relatively equal to Europe in the 19th century.

    11. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

      native america seems to be a mix of all the races, but i beleive the chinese were the native americans

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    12. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by coupland · · Score: 2

      Very true. I think the big difference is that few cultures had the same concept of conquest and collonialism as did western Europeans. Competition for resources and associated violence exists in all cultures but few escalated to the point of outright conquest as did the Europeans.

    13. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you go by the old idea that "it is the thought that counts", then the Europeans and the Native Amercians really were not that different. 15th century Native America was little different than 6th century Europe; filled with brutal and savage barbarians; lots of killing and murdering etc.

      The only difference is that the Europeans won; they had weapons and disease and technology. Had the Native Americans had these, they very well might have sailed over to Europe and commited genocide as well.

    14. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cry me a fucking river. If the natives could have gotten to europe and enslaved the entire continent we would have. Its not like the meso-american cultures were adverse to plunder and rapine. The plains indians neither. This bullshit about us (such me, such as a pureblood injun) being happy peaceful people living in some sort of hippie fantasy land 'in tune with nature' is goddamn insulting bullshit foisted on us by more whiteman bullshit and middle class guilt ridden assholes who don't know a fucking thing about what they are talking about. We are warriors. We are proud of our history as warriors. Give us the chance and we will show you how much we enjoy being warriors. So lay off the peaceful hippy shit and give us the credit that we demand and deserve as warriors.

      Columbus was a twink but he won. So get the fuck over it already. Why is it always you white people getting up in arms about geneocide of us natives. We got sick. We died. It was a plague. You wanna talk about genocide talk about what you are doing to us *TODAY* and not what happened 400 fucking years ago. Assholes.

    15. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by Kidbro · · Score: 2

      It would seem to me that the "Native Americans" were the ones to first "discover" America.

      Why do white people always think they come first?

      Of course only white people count. That's blatantly obvious from the fact that this article is about Chinese people making the discovery ;)

      Seriously, I think the "discovery" part refers to when it was known to non americans that there was a continent over there. Otherwise, nothing could possibly be discovered, as it was obviously there before we noticed =)

    16. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      Paaalease.

      I am well aware that there were many different native american nations, each with there own culture and location. However when these people first came over that ice bridge years ago they did not travel as a slew of different nations. At one point in time there was group of immigrants that, more or less, started it all.

      Moreover, many scientist no believe that traveling over the old ice bridge helped to kill off any bacteria that had been residing on that particular group of humans (too cold for it to exist). Therefore, by the time they had arrived on the american content they were actually healthier people.

      Consequently, when the Europeans came over many years later, they brought back bacteria that the "native" americans had not had a chance to live with in years (since they had more or less been through a arctic decontamination years ago) . Many indian nations died off from disease. Many other fled there dying tribes to escape disease, hence bringing it to other tribes. Tribes that may have never even seen a white man.

      Slavery was also a death sentence for native american nations. Europeans enslaved natives, put them in mines, worked them until the died, and replaced them with other indians afterwards. Furthermore, after slavery began to become a big no-no, vagrancy laws were passed, jailing and bonding out all "non working" indians to land owners and whatnot.

      Things such as booze and Christianity also helped to contribute to the deaths of many innocent people. Culture shock was a big murderer as well.

      As for the "violent" nations you have talked about. From what I have read (and I have read a LOT on this subject... am a Sociology and an Anthropology major), there were not many aggressive tribes. The only nations typically that did become aggressive were the big ones...ie the aztecs. Most nations were too small for violence to really make make sense. Empowering women was also quite a big factor as well.... but that it another post in its own... you'll just have to take my word right now... I've got to get back to making web sites ;).

      By the way... I've never seen Pocohontas.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    17. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by ender81b · · Score: 2

      ahh I see Jared Diamonds book has even influenced slashdot readers. Time to have a look at this 'book'.

      1.) his central premise of ecological conditions determining human devolopment falls apart B/c
      a.) China - more advanced than the west until about 1800 yet in the tropics, supposedly impossible to develop an advanced ciz. in warm climates
      b.) N.America - nearly identical climate with Europe but never developed a truly advanced civilization
      c.) S. America - close climate paralells with Africa but developed highly advanced culutures and civilizations: Mayan, Inca, Aztec

      2.) Disease
      a.) Argues that disease destroyed african civilizations but glosses over such European calamities as
      Black Plague, Typhoid,Malaria and many others
      b.) Seems to base his research more on current world situations than historical

      3.) The whole basis of continents with North-South Axis and East-West axis is absurd and makes me mad just thinking about. In particular, Asia can be either a North-South or East-West depending upon where you measure.

      These are just to many, I tried to go over the most important and glaring mistakes he made. In all honesty, for a truly global perspective check out Andre Gundar Frank's ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (too lazy to link it).

    18. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by dalutong · · Score: 1

      Here's the difference. Lets take the aztecs as an example. they sacrificed MASS amounts of slaves/prisoners/lower class citizens to keep the sun turning. they truly believed that if they didn't provide human sacrifices to the sun then it would stop turning and they would all die. scientifically inept, in this way yes (though they had amazingly advanced science otherwise). but not barbaric. they wanted to keep the sun turning.

      when they went to war they took over places with brute force, but they didn't slaughter people. they came in, said "fight us, you'll lose." they won, then they took the prisoners back as slaves or whatnot. they didn't rape, pillage, or mass murder them. (except when they came back to sacrifice them to keep the sun turning.)

      they didn't think their people superior. they just wanted to keep the earth alive (and get land.)

      so when the spaniards came and started raping and pillaging... it was just repugnant and suprising. to kill just to show your superiority or to rape women as "plunder" was barbaric to them (and in the universal sence!)

      so, yes, i would say the europeans, for whatever reasons, were more sick-minded than the natives. and the chinese. (i tie that to different interpretations of "knowledge is power." the chinese believed that "knowledge is power." in its most basic sense. just having the knowledge is being powerful. with the europeans it is more "knowledge is power, if you apply the knowledge to get power."

      look at gunpowder and the compass. the chinese had it forever... but didn't go and take over the world (khan did.. but he was mongolian). the europeans saw the gunpowder... and gave it its current name.

      people can hate the chinese all they want, but they have never been as pugnacious as the europeans of days past have been. (and the days when they were aren't long since past...)

      --

      What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
    19. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      I'll be the first to admit that Diamond's book is not perfect. I only suggested it as a source of some interesting theories.
      But the example's you gave of mistakes are what I would expect from someone who skimmed the book very quickly or did not completely read it.
      1.a.) He never said that advanced civ was impossible in the tropics.
      1.b.c.)Climate was certainly not the only factor Diamond talked about. This is what makes me think you just read a couple chapters.
      2.a) He actually argued that the european exposure(from their livestock/pets) to the various "crowd diseases" you mention is what gave the surviving europeans so many deadly microbes to carry to other places. I don't see how that is "glossing over"
      2.b.) Apparently you also did not make it to end of the book which has a 30 page section listing his resources and further readings. I don't think his research/resources are very questionable. Especially when neither of us are professionals in the field, 8^)
      3.) That point I agree with, :)
      Frank's book sounds interesting.

    20. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Moreover, many scientist no believe that traveling over the old ice bridge helped to kill off any bacteria that had been residing on that particular group of humans (too cold for it to exist). Therefore, by the time they had arrived on the american content they were actually healthier people.

      The infectious agents live in people, not on them, so the outside temperature doesn't matter. The immigrants were well dressed for the climate, and the germs traveled well with them.

    21. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by ender81b · · Score: 2

      I admit - I only read hear and their and skimmed the book, so it is quite possible (probable) that I got some of my stuff mixed up. Also, I cannot seem to find my copy of his book to look at. Oh well.

      The simple statement I was trying to express is that Diamond's book, and thousands like his, just don't explain the whole story of rise/fall of civilizations and are full of contradictions and, sometimes, fallacies.

      Even the book I recomended to you, ReOrient, doesn't fully explain the rise of the west (I imagine if it did it would've won the pulitzer by now..). The point that has been (Drilled) into me by most of my history prof. is that NOBODY has truly figured out why some civs rise/fall.

      BTW, if you want an interesting contrast between the two (current) thoughts on the Rise of Europe (Industrial revolution) I would suggest reading David Landes: Wealth and Poverty of Nations and then reading ReOrient. Landes is... painfull to read (extremely eurocentric).

    22. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by nomadic · · Score: 2

      China is not "in the tropics". Part of it is, of course, but the area where Chinese civilization developed isn't.

      And China wasn't more advanced than Europe in the 1800s. You'd have to go back over a hundred years or so until you reach a point where China MIGHT have an edge in technology.

    23. Re:Umm...what about the Native Americans by ender81b · · Score: 1

      Historians generally consider China to hold an edge over Europe until the early 1800's. By this I mean economic capacity and standard of living - not necassarily technological edge - which, you are right, they lost to Europe early in the 17th century. Until the early-1800's China exceeded Europe in GDP, per-capita income, and Standard of Living.

      As for China being/not being in the tropics, the yellow river valley (where chinese civ. developed) is considered to be in the tropics while the Yangtze valley is more of a temperate climate comparable to italy/S. France/greece.

  38. Yeah, but.... by SmileyBen · · Score: 2

    Yeah, but they didn't bother to slaughter all the natives so they could form their own self-righteous, godly country and escape the evils of their own ;-) ;-)

    1. Re:Yeah, but.... by JoeHep · · Score: 1

      Well, other than the Incas and Aztec and the Myans and the people of Teotihuacan. They killed thousands at a time. For reason ranging from amusement to pleasing the gods.

      --
      When the only tool you have is an ax, every problem looks fun.
  39. I have the same problem ... by dustpuppy · · Score: 3, Funny

    When playing Civ 3 starting out in North America, every friggin country discovers me before I discover them ... damn them.

  40. Re:No - MOD PARENT UP by Sarcasm_Orgasm · · Score: 0, Insightful

    This I know, & I'll tell to thee.
    Slashdot is a place for everyone including "me"
    Time spent trolling slashdot is never wasted
    You should however take caution however, when you're obviously lambasted!

    Telling people how to mod is really rude
    Did you buy a Dell dude?
    I know smoking crack is all the rage
    but it's addictive properties have left you in a cage!

    --
    Special people have long socks, ride short buses, & invent witty sigs.
  41. Description of Zheng He's fleet from book by Anthy · · Score: 4, Informative

    If anyone is interested, here is what the book "Thunder from the East" by two winners of the Pulitzer prize wrote about Zhang He's fleet: "Between 1405 and 1433 Zheng He commanded seven major expeditions, involving the largest navel fleet that the world would see for the next five centuries. Not until World War I did the West mount anything comparable. Chinese records show that Zheng He's fleet included 28 000 sailors on 300 ships, the longest of which were 400 feet long. By comparison, Columbus in 1492 had 90 sailors on 3 ships, the biggest of which was 85 feet long. Zheng He's ships also had design elements such as balanced rudders and watertight bulwark compartments that would not be introduced in Europe for another 350 years. The ships sailed as far as East Africa and could have gone around the globe. It is difficult to conceive of their magnificence, for each of the grandest ships-the "treasure ships"-had nine masts,huge red silk sails, 24 bronze cannon, carved wooden animal heads, and painted sides with large "eyes" in front to see the ocean ahead. The treasure ships had luxury cabins with balconies for the top officers and for foreign princes who would be brought home, and these ships were backed by specialized vessels including horse-carriers, troop transports, cargo ships, two kinds of warships, and water tankers carrying drinking water. The crews included 10 translatrors, 5 astronomers, 180 doctors and pharmacologists to treat the sick and gather foreign herbs, and even 2 protocol experts to ensure that the Chinese treated foreigners with just the proper degree of respect. The sophistication of the fleet underscores how far the East used to be ahead of the West. In a broader sense, it indicates the stakes for the entire world as Asia struggles to get back to its feet. The present situation-with Asia making up a minor part of world's economy-is unusual in historical terms. For the great majority of the last few thousand years, Asia has been far wealthier and more advanced and cosmopolitan than any place in Europe. Several ancient Chinese cities had populations of more than one million at their peak, and by some accounts the Tang Dynasty capital of Changan had almost two million taxable residents in the later part of the first millenium. In contrast, as late as 1500 the largest city in Europe was probably Naples, with a total population of 150 000. So ancient Asia was the longtime champion of commerce and technology, and one of the central questions is whether it is now ready to recover a part of what it lost. ..... Chinese records show that Zheng He's fleet reached the Kenyan ports of Malindi and Mombasa. Zheng He knew about Europe from Arab traders, and he could have continued around the Cape of Good Hope and established direct trade with Europe. But Europe was a backwards region with nothing to offer, as the Chinese saw it. China wanted ivory, medicine, spices, exotic woods, even samples of African wildlife, but it had little interest in European products like wool, beads or wine. So China turned up their noses at Europe."

    1. Re:Description of Zheng He's fleet from book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you liar.

    2. Re:Description of Zheng He's fleet from book by markmoss · · Score: 2

      There's quite a difference between 400 feet and 1,000 feet. Poetic license?

      Big ships have to be extremely strong to handle the bending stresses caused by big waves in the deep ocean, and, and 400 feet may be about the outer limit attainable with wood. IIRC, at the height of the 19th century era of clipper ships, they never reached 400 feet. But these clipper ships had dozens of sails on 3 masts in a quite intricate rigging. Dividing the sails up that way helped keep them to manageable sizes.

      A heavy-laden 400 foot ship with 9 masts, and a single lateen sail on each mast would be a really impressive sight, but it sounds like a handling nightmare to me. If the sails were big enough to provide any speed, they were enormous and the forces required to control them would have been far beyond human strength. How good were the Chinese at building capstans? And how many normal-sized junks did they send along as tugs and tenders for each monster ship?

    3. Re:Description of Zheng He's fleet from book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > you liar.


      Wow.


      I am in awe of the devastating brilliance of your retort. The breadth of your intellectual capacity must truly be astounding.


      Truly.

    4. Re:Description of Zheng He's fleet from book by AgileChen · · Score: 1

      Hopefully the book mentioned how the Chinese court later turned sour on foreign explorations and destroyed most of the records by Zhang He.
      (I venture to guess that much of the historical facts about Zhang He are not from China but inferred unfortunately from European sources.) The unwillingness to open its borders for trade of goods and knowledge has been the prevailing force behind its ultimate fall from being the most advanced civilization at the time (Ming and Tang Dynasty) to a later weakling carved up by Europeans (Opium Wars at the end of Qing Dynasty).

  42. 1000 foot long boat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1000 feet! Glad I didn't have to paint it.

  43. We're the daft ones by frogmella · · Score: 1

    Funny that so many races discovered America, but only us stupid Brits didn't have the good sense to leave it well alone...

    1. Re:We're the daft ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, things were going pretty well until you decided to sell use tea and stamps ....

    2. Re:We're the daft ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that was Tax us for Tea and Stamps... It didnt much matter where it was made and who sold it as long as the Brits got their tax.

  44. That's okay by billcopc · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't mind, the Chinese can have USA, as long as they don't 'invade' Canada, else we'll have to unleash an army of Great Beavers upon them.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
    1. Re:That's okay by Pope · · Score: 1

      Bah, we burned down their capital once, we can do it again.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  45. Extraordinary claims by AndyChrist · · Score: 2

    So far that's what we've got.

    Apparantly the world is still waiting on the extraordinary evidence (and that would be why 85 percent of those Royal Geographic Society people are planning to show up).

    This guy is talking about THOUSAND FOOT WOODEN SHIPS. This would have to be a first, and beat the largest known rival almost 3fold. That alone is making me think "this guy is 3 weeks early."

    1. Re:Extraordinary claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, once again the silly Sagan postulate raises it's head.

      So what if it seems an "extraordinary" claim to you? It does not require an extraordinary proof. All it requires is -proof-, whether it is mundane or fantastic. That's how science is done.

      Sagan, in his fervor to debunk anything that deviated from the orthodoxy of science, coined that silly phrase which goes against the grain of real scientific progress.

      If you're going to claim something, then you need unbiased and well-researched proof. It does NOT have to be "extraordinary", just factual.

    2. Re:Extraordinary claims by AndyChrist · · Score: 2

      Factual evidence of something extraordinary would be extraordinary. You wouldn't think finding say, remains of a thousand foot long wooden ship to be extraordinary? I know I would.

      Jeez, what do you think I (or sagan) would be looking for? God's big bearded, scowling, yellow-eyed, badly-animated face appearing in the clouds?

  46. The ancient Egyptians discovered Australia by dgroskind · · Score: 2, Informative

    And although Captain James Cook was credited with discovering Australia for the British Empire in 1770, the Chinese had mapped the island continent 337 years earlier.

    Actually, the Egyptians discovered New South Wales between 1779 and 2748 BC. Hieroglyphic carvings in Hunter Valley, 100 km north of Sydney, relate how Djes-eb, one of the sons of the Pharaoh Ra Djedef, died from a snake bite.

    Australia also appears on the map of Eratosthenes, compiled in 194 BC. This Erasthosthenes was the same person who devised the famous method of calculating prime numbers, still used as a benchmark today.

    1. Re:The ancient Egyptians discovered Australia by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where does Australia appear on that map of Eratosthenes? All I see is Taprobane, and that is the ancient name for Sri Lanka.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    2. Re:The ancient Egyptians discovered Australia by thogard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The boat that was found under the pyramid in Giza was only slightly smaller than the Mayflower. While it wasn't built for ocean voyages, it does seem to be built stronger than the repoduction of the Mayflower I saw.

      A common picture in tombs have a picture of the deceased holding a knife to the neck of an Indian or Ethiopian. There are reports that they knew of at least four other races 3000 years ago. There are almost no detailed drawings of ships or maps. There are also reports that the Egypteans didn't go far in their ships but hired crews from other areas. Maybe they had some superstition about going too far from home.

      Some of the survey maps from 3000 to 5000 years ago have areas that are very accurate. As in better than the ones done in the 1800's by the French and require round earth calculations. There is an map of the entire coast of Africa in the British Museum so someone was going long distances in boats and getting back. I'm not sure the ones that got to Australia ever got back since a long boat at that time had a high risk of being a one way trip to fish food.

    3. Re:The ancient Egyptians discovered Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh jeez. So he "only" knew about a small island thousands of miles away from europe?

    4. Re:The ancient Egyptians discovered Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Irish and Scottish have always claimed to be direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians, bizarrely enough, it's in all the old Irish legends that the nation of Scotia (which was Ireland (Scotia Major) and Scotland (Scotia Minor - no that's not the wrong way round)) was founded when the daughter of an Egyptian Pharaoh, Scota, eloped with a greek prince, Gathelos.

    5. Re:The ancient Egyptians discovered Australia by thogard · · Score: 1

      Interesting theory. The problems I see with it are by the time the Greeks got good at going long distances, Egypt was well into its decline.

      The typical Irish red-head gene is also found on the south eastern coast of Africa (in an area that has some of the oldest stone buildings around)

      The term Pharaoh comes from Arabia and may never been used in ancient Egypt. The name Egypt comes from the bible and when the French found the cool stuff near Giza, they assumed that it was the same place as the Mosses story and named the place Aegypt. At least because of the stability of Latin and their translation from Greek, we have a good idea how to pronounce names like Cleopatra but we know languages change over time but its hard to figure out how to pronounce a city's name that was represented as a symbol.

    6. Re:The ancient Egyptians discovered Australia by dgroskind · · Score: 2

      All I see is Taprobane...

      The island labeled Taprobane is the wrong size and completely the wrong shape for Sri Lanka, which is teardrop-shaped. Except for the label, it more closely resembles the size and shape of Australia than Sri Lanka.

      Admittedly, it's a bit of a stretch. Taprobane is the classical Greek pronounciation of Tambapanni, the local name for Sri Lanka. Presumably, it was important enough for trade that Eratosthenes would have included it in his map.

    7. Re:The ancient Egyptians discovered Australia by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 2

      The island labeled Taprobane is the wrong size and completely the wrong shape for Sri Lanka, which is teardrop-shaped. Except for the label, it more closely resembles the size and shape of Australia than Sri Lanka.

      Admittedly, it's a bit of a stretch. Taprobane is the classical Greek pronounciation of Tambapanni, the local name for Sri Lanka. Presumably, it was important enough for trade that Eratosthenes would have included it in his map.


      The ancients had a considerable trade with Taprobane, which is why Eratosthenes would have heard of it. Australia is another matter entirely.

      As for the shape - you realize this is a modern reconstruction, because no ancient copies of his map survive. They might as well have drawn Taprobane in the shape of Pikachu.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    8. Re:The ancient Egyptians discovered Australia by JohnPM · · Score: 2, Informative

      A detailed analysis and debunking of the Ancient Egyptian/Australia theory (hoax) can be found in this usenet discussion.

      --
      Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
    9. Re:The ancient Egyptians discovered Australia by dgroskind · · Score: 2

      ...which is why Eratosthenes would have heard of it.

      Because Eratosthenes was head of the library of Alexandria, I surmised he might have heard of ancient Egyptian voyages to Australia and included it on his map. However, the evidence for the ancient Egyptian voyages is probably a hoax so really all we're left with is his prime number algorithm.

    10. Re:The ancient Egyptians discovered Australia by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1
      Size and shape - I can't agree with you there. It looks too thin and elongated to be Australia (indeed, it looks like a pretty featureless blob) and the map has it not much bigger in area than Ireland. To be the right size, it'd have to be the size of Europe. It's also sat off the tip of India, rather than as far from India as Europe is.

      It looks far more like an elongated teardrop on its side than Australia. Australia has large features in the coastline that should appear in any sketch map. Either way it is so badly drawn that conclusions drawn from shape are meaningless.

    11. Re:The ancient Egyptians discovered Australia by dgroskind · · Score: 1

      ...the Ancient Egyptian/Australia theory (hoax)

      "The ancient Egyptians discovered Australia" made an amusing tabloid-style headline but the chances of it being true were remote. There is no reputable source on the Web for the story and other Web sites that refer to the story only quote the one page I linked to in my comment.

      Why some people are inclined to believe rather than doubt these sorts of anomalous stories is another question. Whatever the reason is, it makes life easier for charlatans and hoaxers.

    12. Re:The ancient Egyptians discovered Australia by dgroskind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It looks too thin and elongated to be Australia.

      No doubt it is Sri Lanka. I was merely trying to turn a hopeless case into a weak one.

      Erasthosthenes was head of the library of Alexandria so if there had been any record of Egyptians visiting Australia, presumably he would have known about it. Even in the haphazard record keeping of the time, the Egyptians probably wouldn't have lost a whole continent. The fact that Australia isn't on the map is further evidence that Egyptians weren't aware of it.

  47. Americans discover Europe by gerf · · Score: 0

    i'm just waiting for that one... "Ancient 2nd century Inuit boat found off the coast of Portugual. Have found settlement nearby."

  48. Uhhh....... by Cranial+Dome · · Score: 2, Interesting

    .....it still amazes me that so-called educated people still dispute who "discovered" lands already populated by humans for THOUSANDS of years -- as if their existence and lives don't "count" for anything.

    ...all those formerly pristine frontiers just quietly awaiting their future deforestation, mass flora/fauna species extinction, genocide, colonialism, and natural disaster events.

    Whew -- on second thought, I guess "America" is lucky all those folks were "racing" to discover it. Those natives sure weren't doing much with it. If not for that race, it would still be an unspoiled, underpopulated, wild, undeveloped, unpolluted, useless area. Only lately has it begun to realize it's full potential!

    1. Re:Uhhh....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God, I'm getting sick of your kind posting the exact same thing over and over. Progress demands expansion into areas that are not being used to capacity. The same thing occurs with "lower" animals and is considered wholly natural. Furthermore, when that land is occupied, the explorers often become invaders. How come none of your kind are bemoaning the genocide and colonialism of the Romans when they persecuted my ancestral people? Wait... they were both white groups and so they don't count. Genocide only matters to you people when a white group attacks a non-white group. It's as racist as anything else.

    2. Re:Uhhh....... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Actually, when Columbus "discovered" America, there was a substantial population already there. However, shortly after his visit, disease quickly decimated the existing natives and wiped out as much as 90% of the original population. Future expiditions had a much reduced native population to deal with.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  49. Re:*Everybody* discovered America befoer Columbus. by pbranes · · Score: 2, Redundant
    I guess different schools teach different ways, but when I was in elementary and middle school, we learned at that time that the Vikings came to America first, but after their initial attempt, did not establish a permanent settlement. We have all known for years that Columbus didn't discover America. I believe that he is still important for a couple of reasons
    • columbus made this discovery known to everyone
    • chinese/vikings/etc. may have discovered america first, but their goal at the time was not expansion and gold
    • when vikings discovered america, the western world had not even begun the renaissance yet, which means that even if the vikings had told everyone, no one would have cared

    Basically, Columbus wasn't the first, but he had the biggest impact on history.
  50. Thousand foot long ships? by dinotrac · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Can that really be true?
    On nine sails?

    The freakin' Titanic was only 900 feet long and needed 31,000 steam-driven shaft horsepower just to get halfway across.

    Thousand foot wooden ships with a single sail every hundred feet or so were either a remarkable engineering accomplishment or a mariner's nightmare.

    1. Re:Thousand foot long ships? by PSC · · Score: 1

      They probably had 40000+ terracotta soldiers on the oars...

      --
      --- The light at the end of the tunnel is probably a burning truck.
    2. Re:Thousand foot long ships? by wljones · · Score: 1

      An article posted by PBS some time ago said the Chinese ships were not only huge, they also used off-center masts. This would be ideal for sailing before the wind, and these outer sails could also be trimmed to help with steering. The Chinese junk may no longer be a factor in oceanic commerce, but the same is true of the Viking longboat and the English clipper. All of them were important at some point in history.

    3. Re:Thousand foot long ships? by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 2

      Thousand foot wooden ships with a single sail every hundred feet or so were either a remarkable engineering accomplishment or a mariner's nightmare.

      Then there are these neat things called "oars."

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    4. Re:Thousand foot long ships? by Shadarr · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the Chinese had smaller feet. Especially the women.

    5. Re:Thousand foot long ships? by dimator · · Score: 1

      Then there are these neat things called "oars."

      And for loneliness there are these things called "whores."

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
    6. Re:Thousand foot long ships? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then there are these neat things called "oars."

      Right, dude. Let's see you row across the Pacific.

      Not to mention Junks don't use oars. Long distance voyaging is only practical with sails; oars are for short bursts of speed only.
    7. Re:Thousand foot long ships? by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 2

      Peckerhead. The Vikings travelled across vast stretches of open water with oar ships. You assume the ship was a "junk" also.

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  51. Native Americans Have Feelings Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I am a Native American and I just wanted to let the SlashDot community know that I believe that I am speaking on behalf of my people when I tell you that the "from the native-americans-don't-count dept." comment under the posted article on the SlashDot homepage.

    It is bad enough that my people barely have a voice in a nation that was once ours alone, and now we have to stand by while you insult us by saying we don't count. Why don't we count? Because our love of mother earth over-shadows our lust for power and strife among the nations? You didn't even bother to capitalize "Native American", as I'm sure you would have capitalized any other nationality.

    You may laugh at my people now and see them as weak. But vengeance will be ours when the great spirit calls us and the winds blow our ashes with the dust. We will be worshiped with the earth and people will say - there is a land, and there is her people, they are one.

    1. Re:Native Americans Have Feelings Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hhah hahah ha. That's funny.

    2. Re:Native Americans Have Feelings Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will you stop laughing at my people! Again SlashDot I ask you apology.

    3. Re:Native Americans Have Feelings Too by vidarh · · Score: 2
      Take it easy, think about irony, and read again. The post put "discovered America" in quotes, it then goes on to put the "from the native-americans-don't-count dept.". To me that clearly indicates that the editor in question, while finding the article linked to interesting, did see the irony of someone claiming that Chinese "discovered" America long after America had already been settled.

      The "don't count" comment is unlikely to be reflect the editors meaning, and more likely to point out that there is a good reason why "discovered America" was put in quotes: America had already been discovered and settled.

    4. Re:Native Americans Have Feelings Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank-you for your generous support of my people, the great spirit smiles upon you. He says, there is the earth, and there is her people, they are one. There also is white man sympathetic with my people, and him OK too.

    5. Re:Native Americans Have Feelings Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you just chill and smoke a peace pipe?

    6. Re:Native Americans Have Feelings Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here, have some beads. Have some smallpox too. Now shut up, troll.
      Why do we have to be tormented by this constant moaning from our Trans-Atlantic colonies? If it isn't the colonists it's the savages.

    7. Re:Native Americans Have Feelings Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I not troll. I am fishes-for-dumbasses-who-mod-origional-post-+1-int eresting-and-i'm-actually-a-troll-you-moron. But they call me /. for short. I am OpenIndian.

    8. Re:Native Americans Have Feelings Too by Scoria · · Score: 1

      That was an utterly wonderful troll.

      --
      Do you like German cars?
    9. Re:Native Americans Have Feelings Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I understand that you're offended (unless you're trolling, in which case you can fsck off...but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), touting grand illusions of Native Americans suddenly being "worshipped with the earth" and speaking such phrases as "vengeance will be ours" not only make you sound like a lunatic but a "possible terrorist threat" as well.

      After September 11th, I'd be surprised if the FBI didn't come knocking on your door after that post - either to throw you in a rubber-room for sounding like a nutball (to them, not to me - I understand quite well, thankyouverymuch) or for threatening to blow up America (again, that would be what they read it as, not me).

      However, in true American, ignorant spirit, I still need to say this in recourse: You bring your Spirit...we'll bring our Napalm.

      Okay, sorry...I had to!

      Zero
      E-Mail me; remove the NOSPAM for extra savings!

  52. I'm not surprised by tangent3 · · Score: 1

    After all, a lot of American law look like only the Chinese would have thought of it, you know like the DMCA, SSSCA.... afterall, they do come from a place with less freedom than the US, don't they?

    1. Re:I'm not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :-)

      The Irish also claim to have discovered america in the 6th century (St. Brendan),

      and coincidentally... invented copyright law in the first place in the 6th century !

      (High King Dermott's judgement against St. Columba when St. Columba copied St. Finnian's book without permission - "To ever cow its calf, to every book its copy" was the first recorded instance of a copyright. Of course, this actually lead to a small civil war, in which Columba's clan eventually defeated Dermott, thus illustrating that people didn't agree with copyright laws even then...)

  53. Actualy American Indians discovered it first.... by richieb · · Score: 1, Redundant
    A bunch of rather brave people who crossed over from Asia and first settled the Americas were the original discovers.

    BTW, was it Pocohantas that discovered Europe?

    --
    ...richie - It is a good day to code.
  54. The vikings discovered America... by Snigel · · Score: 1

    Leif Ericsson (who later invented the mobile phone) "found" America 4-500 years before Columbus...

    ... but he was clever enough to lose it again!

    I guess he wasn't impressed? ;)

    1. Re:The vikings discovered America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Leif Ericsson (who later invented the mobile phone) "found" America 4-500 years before Columbus...
      ... but he was clever enough to lose it again!
      I guess he wasn't impressed? ;)


      He probably was pissed off by the incessant analog roaming charges.
  55. Funny, I thought Native Indians discovered America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What have I missed?

    Oh, Speke discovered the source of the Nile, which turned as it later turned out is not the actual source.
    What arrogance!
    Who discovered the Wall of China?

  56. people form Oceania got there first by marijne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    actually settlers, drifting in small boats on the currents of the ocean, have probably landed all along Americas west coast. The Nowegian guy Thor Heierdal proved this when he built the Contiki and the other boat (I forgot it's name) from material growing in the ilands in the Indonesian archipel and used this to sail across the Pacific from the Indonesian archipel. It took him two tries, but he got as far as Easter Iland. this is of course just one of the many way's in which people reached the worlds remote continents, next to crossing the Bering street (the Inuit way) and crossing the atlantic from Ysland (the Viking way)

    1. Re:people form Oceania got there first by vidarh · · Score: 3, Informative
      Wrong direction :)

      Take a look at the homepage of the Kon-Tiki museum in Oslo.

      Heyerdahl (who btw. now in his eigthies are still active digging up a historic settlement in Russia I believe, and overseeing excavations of pyramids on Sicily, the Canary islands and South America), sailed from Peru in 1947 to Raroia in Polynesia to prove that settlements in the South Pacific could have originated with explorers from South America.

      Btw. The movie about Kon-Tiki won an Oscar for best documentary in 1950 I believe.

      What you might be thinking about was Ra I and Ra II from 1969, where he tried to prove that South America may have been populated by boat from Africa, since South America is within reach of Morocco by Papyrus boats built after ancient Egyptian design. Ra I almost reached Barbados, and Ra II succeeded.

      He also did a fourth voyage on Tigris, a boat built to show that there could have been cultural exchange historically between the old cultures of Mesopotamia, the Indus valley and Egypt via the see. The voyage wasn't completed because of the Iran/Iraq war.

      You're right in linking Heyerdahl to the Easter Island, though, as he did lead an expedition there as well, trying among other things to link his theories of expeditions from South America closer to findings on Easter Island.

      Central for Heyerdahl is that he believes that there has been much wider cultural exchanges between ancient cultures than what are known today, and that many cultures had much more extensive sea faring experience than many believe.

    2. Re:people form Oceania got there first by markmoss · · Score: 2

      Correct, fishing and other boats do get caught in storms and blown clear across oceans, sometimes arriving with someone still alive on board. Japanese fishermen do sometimes fetch up on American shores, and it's quite likely that even in St Brendan's time Irish boats sometimes got blown clear to North America. It's a lot less likely that they ever made it home. OTOH, Lief Ericson was simply following the report of a storm-blown Norseman named Bjarni something, who spotted land but didn't land.

      Thor Heyerdahl is a crackpot. That doesn't mean he is always wrong, but he is incapable of recognizing it when he is in error. OTOH, he's an interesting crackpot...

      He sailed a balsa-wood raft, named Kon Tiki after a supposed Peruvian/Easter Islander (IIRC) legendary figure, from the coast of Peru to somewhere in Polynesia. (Yes, the raft had sails and keelboards, and Heyerdahl claims to have got the design from drawings by the first Spanish explorers on that coast.) If he was aiming at Easter Island, he missed, but certainly he showed that it was not impossible for ancient Peruvians to have reached Easter Island -- if only they had canned foods, water de-salinators, compass, sextant, chronometer, and a radio to get those weather reports. Seriously, part of his crew did live on native foods + fish and rainwater. Fishing was easy (the raft doesn't scare the fish, and it's so low often they'd come right aboard on the waves), the water supply was more iffy. His theory is that "Kon Tiki" and his people fled from losing a war in Peru by raft, and landed in Easter Island. It would have been damned dangerous to sail without the modern gear, but if they happened to aim right and the weather was reasonable chances are part of them would have survived. Not that this is any proof it really happened; AFAIK, the main support for this theory being that in Heyerdahl's interpretion of Peruvian legends Tiki sailed away, and Easter Island legends also contain a Tiki among the founders. This is roughly like finding evidence that one of Robert E. Lee's relatives sailed towards China and claiming that he must have founded the Lee family of China... And let's not get into the racist elements of Heyerdahl's hypothesis (Tiki was supposed to be white).

      It's rather more likely that a Polynesian/Peruvian connection began the other way; storm-caught Polynesian outriggers and catamarans could easily have fetched up on the South American coast now and then. If the natives didn't kill them right away, they might even have formed a Polynesian colony in Peru for a while, and discovered Easter Island from there. This seems to me equally likely as finding Easter Island from any other Pacific island. And this would simply make "Tiki" a Polynesian chief who offended the Peruvians and had to sail away, if there is anything at all to Heyerdahl's interpretation of the legends.

      Heyerdahl also tried to sail a ship made from papyrus reeds across the Atlantic, on the theory that ancient Egyptians built their ships this way and crossed the Atlantic. First time, it disintegrated in mid-ocean. It's certainly nice to be able to radio for rescue when your theories don't work out. 8-) He claimed he recognized the error he had made in putting the ship together and was going to try again, but I don't remember if he made it. According to him, one nice about the reed ship is that it's very flexible, so it doesn't have to endure high forces like a rigid ship, but does this make up for the fact that the ships material will come apart when it soaks up enough water?

    3. Re:people form Oceania got there first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is also strong and growing (but still resisted) evidence that Europeans came over the North Atlantic to North America during the last ice age, when sea levels were lower and it would have been possible to sail and fish along the edge of the ice sheets moving from Spain and Ireland across to Newfoundland, etc. Similarities in certain artifacts and genetic markers are said to be evidence of this migration.

      I think in time the academic orthodoxy will have to admit that the Americas were settled over a very long period of time from multiple sources, not just from the late ice age Siberian migration which is the current orthodoxy.

  57. Oscar Wilde by DOsinga · · Score: 1

    Of course, America had often been discovered before, but it
    had always been hushed up.--Oscar Wilde (1856--1900)

  58. Marco Polo wasn't the first by NullAndVoid · · Score: 2

    Marco Polo brought China into the popular culture through his writings, but he wasn't the first there by a long long long shot. Europe had been trading with the far east since at least the Roman times. The lands between the Med and China aren't exactly barren wastelands, there were Persians and Indians in between. For a while the Mongols had an empire which included China and Moscow, and everything in between.

    --


    -- Sigs are for losers
  59. This Doesn't Count by ignatzMouse · · Score: 1

    You only get points for "discovering" a country if you kill/enslave the native peoples and take control of the land's natural resources.

    --
    No artist tolerates reality. -- Nietzsche
    1. Re:This Doesn't Count by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and we all know that only columbus could have even 'thought' about this...everyone else who 'discovered' america came over to give blowjobs...
      fucktard

    2. Re:This Doesn't Count by mazachan · · Score: 1

      So does that mean that the US hasn't discovered the moon yet? Oh wait, it was faked!

  60. Its a bit more complex then that. by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Diffrent dynasties had diffrent outlooks. The Ming dynasty was the one who built the great wall, they also retreated from the sea, ie closed all the seaports and costal cities in an attempt to starve out pirates and such

    It was a really quite sad time for chinese history, before the Ming china was a great seafaring nation, hundreds of years before western european expansionism.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Its a bit more complex then that. by beddess · · Score: 1

      if i recall correctly, the ming dynasty was pretty friendly with some of the pirates, who were backing them against the manchus. And once the manchu dynasty came out on top, they moved everyone in from the coast to starve out the pirates.

      --
      "Weasling out of work is important to learn; it is what separates humans from animals. Except for weasels."
    2. Re:Its a bit more complex then that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European expansionism has been ongoing since the crusades. Viking explorers were visiting North America, Russia, and the Mediterranean over a thousand years ago; Portuguese explorers were sailing down and around the coast of Africa in the 1400's. This is hardly "hundreds of years" after the Ming seafarers.

  61. �Europe was the center of the world? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Europe is the center of the world.
    Europe and its colonies (Australia and America) are the center of the world, you only need to look Internet to know that.

    And Slashdot Europe-centered view of the world, isn't an exception.

    It's not a critic is how the world works.

  62. unlikely by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Actualy, it's pretty unlikely that the indians ever had a population close to that of europe. Almost all of america was vast, untouched wilderness before the europeans came. Europe, in contrast was almost all farmland, and the hands of humans are evident everywhere.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:unlikely by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1
      Actualy, it's pretty unlikely that the indians ever had a population close to that of europe.

      When I studied the subject in college, I was told that the population of south and central America peaked at about 20 million and N. America at about 10 million. So we're at least talking about the same ballpark, especially when the massive deaths in Europe due to the bubonic plague are considered.

      Almost all of america was vast, untouched wilderness before the europeans came.

      This is incorrect (unless you quibble about "almost all.") Many areas of New England had been cleared of forest for the purpose of agriculture by the natives, who were later nearly wiped out by smallpox and other diseases. When Europeans such as the Pilgrims arrived, they found cleared fields and no people, and they concluded (falsely) that the New World was a "virgin" land.

      I recommend further study, if you're interested. I'm not, which is why I don't know much more than this.

    2. Re:unlikely by autopr0n · · Score: 2

      Well, of course America had far, far more landmass then 'western' Europe did. (and still has, I guess :P)

      who were later nearly wiped out by smallpox and other diseases. When Europeans such as the Pilgrims arrived, they found cleared fields and no people, and they concluded (falsely) that the New World was a "virgin" land.

      Didn't those diseases not occur until after western settlers?

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    3. Re:unlikely by gimpboy · · Score: 1

      i believe he's saying the original settlers (very few in numbers) brought smallpox and killed most of the people off. the settlers that followed said "hey there's no one here, it's virgin land" and that's what was stuck in the books.

      --
      -- john
    4. Re:unlikely by jdaily · · Score: 1

      The Atlantic Monthly has a fantastic article this month about the Native American world pre-Columbus.

      It's not available online to non-subscribers, but I would highly recommend picking up the magazine. It has always been one of the best subscription deals around; it wasn't all that long ago that it was $20 for 2 years.

    5. Re:unlikely by the+phantom · · Score: 3, Informative

      2000 years ago, Teotihuacan was the largest city in the entire world, with a population exceeding 100,000. The Aztec, several hundred years later, created an economic empire that may well have streched from southern Colorado to Panama. The Inca existed in a huge military empire that spanned a large chunck of the Pacific Coast in South America. Granted, the continents on the whole never had the population density of the world, but there were people farming on the Mississippi, hunting in the Apalachians, and making a decent living in the Great Basin as well.

    6. Re:unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, America may well still have more landmass, but at this stage, Europe has about 100 million more people....

    7. Re:unlikely by Buggernut · · Score: 1

      I remember reading somewhere that the pre-Columbian population of present-day Canada and USA was around 10 million, and the population of present-day Mexico was about 30 million. It makes sense that areas that had advanced civilizations and agriculture, such as Mexico (Aztecs) and Peru (Incas) had a higher population density and still have a relatively high native population, whereas the more sparsely populated areas of the Americas are now predominantly 'white'.

    8. Re:unlikely by Sharkeys-Day · · Score: 1

      who were later nearly wiped out by smallpox and other diseases. When Europeans such as the Pilgrims arrived, they found cleared fields and no people, and they concluded (falsely) that the New World was a "virgin" land.

      Didn't those diseases not occur until after western settlers?


      In the case of the Mayflower pilgrims, the cleared fields were empty because the tribe had been wiped out from disease due to contact with earlier European explorers/traders. Read about how Squanto learned English sometime.

    9. Re:unlikely by jgalun · · Score: 1

      Actually, according to an article in The Atlantic Monthly, some scholars believe that as many as 113 million Native Americans may have lived in North America before the Europeans arrived.

    10. Re:unlikely by ender81b · · Score: 2

      1.) 2000 years ago is far too long - try more like 600-700

      2.) Actually many chinese cities where larger than 100,000 and some exceeded 3 million - around 0 A.d.

      3.) Many italian cities exceeded 500,000 around the time columbus discovered america

    11. Re:unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Smallpox, among other diseases, was introduced by the europeans, many of whom had already developed immunity. The effect was devastating. This is well described in "Guns, Germs & Steel" mentioned elsewhere. Highly recommended.

    12. Re:unlikely by the+phantom · · Score: 2

      just about 2000 years ago, a volcano near the meso-american city state of Cuicuiloco blew its top, covering a large portion of the area in ash. there was apparantly a major influx of people from this city state, leading to a major boom in the population of Teo. The temple of the sun was built about fifty years later, nearly 2000 years ago

  63. Guns, Germs, and Steel by Paul+Lamere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An excellent book that discusses why some civilizations (particulary european) dominate others ... a good summary
    is here

    1. Re:Guns, Germs, and Steel by ender81b · · Score: 2

      Actually that book is full of fallacies, bad scholarships, and outright lies. TO name just a few: 1.) his central premise of ecological conditions determinging human devolopment falls apart B/c a.) China - more advanced than the west until about 1800 yet in the tropics, supposedly impossible to develop an inadvanced ciz. in warm climates b.) N.America - nearly identical climate with Europe but never developed a truly advanced civilization c.) S. America - close climate paralells with Africa but developed highly advanced culutures and civilizations: Mayan, Inca, Aztec 2.) Disease a.) Argues that disease destroyed african civilizations but glosses over such European calamities as Black Plague, Typhoid,Malaria and many others b.) Seems to base his research more on current world situations than historical 3.) The whole basis of continents with North-South Axis and East-West axis is absurd and makes me mad just thinking about. In particular, Asia can be either a North-South or East-West depending upon where you measure. These are just to many, I tried to go over the most important and glaring mistakes he made. In all honesty, for a truly global perspective check out Andre Gundar Frank's ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (too lazy to link it).

    2. Re:Guns, Germs, and Steel by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 1

      While the book wasn't perfect, you aren't representing it well enough to have a credible opinion. First, his point was that cultures in North America lacked a crop which would suppport a large population. Yes, there was corn, but it takes a while for varieties adapted to the Mexican climate to adapt to the climate further up north. This was one of his points about the North-South axis. The other was that, due to an accident of geography, it's hard as hell to travel over land from (for instance) Mexico to Peru, much less to trade with them. You're also misrepresenting his position on Africa. He argued that Africa also did not have a suitable crop to feed large civilizations. However, the Incans (potatoes) and the Aztecs, Mayans and other meso-american civilizations did (corn). BTW, the Mayans and the Aztecs were located in North America and Central America.

    3. Re:Guns, Germs, and Steel by ender81b · · Score: 2

      Didn't spend enough time address each issue and I can't find my notes on the subject. I will try ot address them from memory. 1.)N. America lacking a crop - Don't remember enough about this to adress it 2.) Mexico - Peru - Yes, it is indeed extremely difficult to travel between the two but no more difficult than say between Rome and Peking/Shanghai; silk road (as an single example). Where there is a will there is a way. 3.)Africa no suitable crops - The Nile river and delta managed to supply the Roman empire with most of it's grain for centuries, and the lower nile supplied the Axum kingdom quite well, and the Niger river supplied a number of kingdoms on the gold coast with a dependable crop (wheat). 4.)Mayans/Aztecs in central america. Indeed, I should've clarified this.

    4. Re:Guns, Germs, and Steel by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 1
      I'd like to add that I didn't think the book was perfect. I do, however, think that the criticisms of the book you've presented aren't valid.

      1. North America lacking a crop. True for most of its history; corn was a relatively late introduction. Ad Diamond pointed out, Mexican corn doesn't do well when planted in northern climates--you need to adapt it.

      2. Of course you *can* do it; the problem is that it's prohibitively hard. A quick look at a map shows that the distance between Mexico and Peru is significantly less than that between Rome and Shanghai. In addition to travelling through extremely rugged terrain, you've also go to go through some awful stretches of rain forest. In comparison, the silk road is relatively easy. Also, remember that indirect trade is easier (i.e., it's easier for the Chinese to trade with their neighbors, who trade with their neighbors, who trade with the Romans, than it was in the case of the Incans and the Aztecs).

      "Where there's a will there's a way" only goes so far. Remembers, the harder it is to get there, the less profit there is in trade. You need something extraordinary (like silk) to make it profitable. 3. I did oversimplify this a bit. First, you're only able to supply examples for limited areas and times. Large parts of the continent are difficult to get to (even now), restricting trade, which meant that large parts of the continent didn't have access to wheat. Crops imported from elsewhere typically don't do well.

      I think Diamond also made some points about the relatively large numbers of parasites present in Africa. In addition to world-wide problems like malaria, other parasites are a serious problem. I mean, where else do you have to worry about tse-tse flies and sleeping sickness?

      Again, Diamond's book wasn't perfect, but I think you're too quick to dismiss it.

      I will look at the book you've recommended, though.

  64. NOT so interesting thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    As others have said, "big woop deee dooo!" The whole map and discovery issue is egocentric in the first place. It's only a discovery if a person is ignorant or egotistic enough to think "where I live is the most important place on earth."

    It was interesting to see the chinese expedition took a less colonial method of exploration. Not your typical colonial "rape, and plunder" approach to discovery. Why people think "rape and plunder" == "progress" is beyond me. This whole topic of who was first is assinine in my book. How about place more emphasis on what happened in the past to cause our current political problems and think of how to fix them. Saying chinese were the first does nothing for me. Not like chinese historians didn't already know that. For those who didn't pay attention in history class, terms like "first world" and other map related terms are purely political. It always has been and probably always will be.

    It would be nice to see scientists and researchers come to their senses and realize, "who gives a shit" if columbus, chinese, vikings, birds, or whales discovered x continent first. Only thing it shows is how egotistic they are.

  65. This whole thing is hilarious... by frleong · · Score: 2

    What exactly is "discovering"? There were already people living there when Columbus or Chinese or whatever race "discovered" America. Do historians consider those native residents animals or what?

    --
    ¦ ©® ±
    1. Re:This whole thing is hilarious... by vidarh · · Score: 2

      That, I assume, is why the headline read 'discovered America' (notice the quotes?). They could of course have said "became the first explorer from a major seafaring nation to return and provide written documentation or maps of the exploration of land unknown to those nations", or something like that. But even though you may manage to get more precise, it's hardly a practical way to deal with it.

    2. Re:This whole thing is hilarious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever discovered water was not a fish.

      If the indians knew where in the world they were, maybe we could say that they "discovered" America, but the fact is they did not.

      Yes, Virginia, knowledge is power and the those with the power make the rules. Stop sucking your thumb, get that "we are the world" crap out of your mind, and grow up.

  66. Re:My experiences in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    score: -1 flamebait....

    ahahhaaaa....
    truth hurts, doesn't it commie?

  67. Chinese were third then by The_Doughboy · · Score: 1

    I thought it went Russians (those who became Natives), Vikings, then Columbus. Now I guess thats changed but if people don't credit the Vikings then they sure as heck aren't going to care about the Chinese

    1. Re:Chinese were third then by foonf · · Score: 2
      I thought it went Russians (those who became Natives)


      They didn't become russians for many thousands of years after crossing the land bridge. Russia's conquest of siberia actually postdates columbus.
      --

      "(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
  68. Living in peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Hey, it makes nice media propaganda. You know, the poor innocent people of America, living their joyous carefree lives like hobbits in the shire were killed and enslaved by the evil white man. Hell, who needs history. If you looked at history you'd see things like the fact that in Africa, slavery was around long before the white man ever came and it was the Africans who encouraged the traders going there to buy slaves. In other words, slavery was started and maintained by the Africans. But will anyone look to history for that? No, of course not. It's much easier and cleaner to blame all the white guys for everything and then sue everyone. Oh, and don't forget reverse discrimination and special treatment for every single person except straight, white men. For people so smart, our minds are so easily controlled by the media.

    1. Re:Living in peace by darnellmc · · Score: 1

      Oh, so let's give those white guys a cookie for raising the practice to a another level - NOT! Slavery was going on in various place, not none compare with Europe and America's exploitation of it. Except maybe the Egyptians enslavement of the Jews.

    2. Re:Living in peace by GMontag451 · · Score: 2
      Slavery was going on in various place, not none compare with Europe and America's exploitation of it. Except maybe the Egyptians enslavement of the Jews.

      I think you mean the Hebrews not the Jews, and it never happened anyway. There is not a single mention of a large Hebrew slave population at any time in any of the ancient Egyptian documents we have unearthed. The only historical record of it is in the Bible, and we all know how reliable that is *eyes roll*

    3. Re:Living in peace by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget all the slaves taken from East Africa by Islamic traders. That was a fairly large business. And let's not forget the rather extensive slave trade still going on today in Africa that has nothing at all to do with the white man. I don't think there is any ethnic group out there that is completely innocent of enslaving other people. It just so happens that the Europeans are the most convenient scapegoat.

  69. Discoveries abound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In related news:
    Americans discover that there are other countries in the world.

  70. Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think that it is a coincidence that Ckatchuan chicken and Canada have the same name?

    StandOnGuard eh my friend

  71. discovering manhatten by marijne · · Score: 1

    the Dutch dicoverd manhatten, do we get some points for that? I know its a lot smaller than the rest of the America's, but it is one of the most important bits... Unfortunately we sold it again for 1 dutch guilder to some english guy, stupid stupid stupid.

  72. America is a ridiculous liberal myth. �Liberal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bush is the most liberal president of the world!
    I read slashdot to understand American culture. But some times it's imposible.
    "Liberté Equalité Fraternité" that's liberal.

    1. Re:America is a ridiculous liberal myth. �Liberal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans seem to have gotten this ludicrous notion in their silly little minds that "liberalism" really means the opposite of what the original philosophers of liberalism defined it to be and what the rest of the world think it means. Americans think it means "socialism".
      They also misspell "aluminium" and play "football" with their hands, using an oval thingy instead of a ball.
      BTW, it's "egalité".

    2. Re:America is a ridiculous liberal myth. �Liberal? by LinuxLowRider · · Score: 0

      You're right about about aluminium and football, as to liberalism, I believe most Americans care about nothing besides getting their bellies and wallets full and getting laid. The rest are immigrants playing real football and dodging the Immigration and Naturalization Services.

  73. Hrrrmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure someone will mention Leif Eriksson...

  74. I know who 'disovered' America! by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

    The indeginous native americans who were living here the whole time you dolts.

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  75. Yeah, but.. by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 2

    yeah, but the Chinese weren't smart enough to loot & pillage the natives and settle the damn place.

    --
    Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
  76. Thank goodness, mod parent up please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep hearing about this book, then forgetting to get a copy and read it! Actually, my history professor in college mentioned it often.

    BTW, where did all of these folks hear the history of human development in North America? My word, at The University of Tennessee utk.edu AND in highschool in Tennessee, we were told that Columbus' crew were BY NO MEANS was the first europeans in the Americas!!! The only faculty that kept bringing up that myth were the Geography folks when they would slam DWM (dead white males) and other liberal arts folks OUTSIDE of history class.

    OR... maybe the rest of the country is just backward?

    1. Re:Thank goodness, mod parent up please? by Zathrus · · Score: 2

      I'll never forget my first day in AP American History class in high school. The teacher started out talking about Columbus borrowing Queen Isabel's jewels to make the sailing, being the first one to discover the Americas, yadda yadda yadda. With most of the class furiously taking notes (I wasn't bothering - couldn't imagine anyone wouldn't remember this tripe by 11th grade anyway).

      After about a half hour she informed the entire class that pretty much everything in that was untrue. And laid out the real deal. And proceeded to do so for the rest of the year. She is still one of the best teachers I've ever had. The only regret I have is that since I aced the AP exam, I never took any history classes in college.

      I will say, however, that this load of tripe is stuffed down the throats of kids daily in grade school and on TV (a particular offender was the School House Rocks! series of TV commercials on ABC in the late 70s/early 80s). And, at least when I was growing up, World History is a joke. It was totally Western European centric and ignored the sources of a lot of European culture and knowledge (namely what is now known as the middle east and Asia). By no means am I a basher of European or American culture, but I do think the history taught in US schools tends to be too Eurocentric. Sure, you hear about the "Mongol Hordes", but there's not really any mention of the Persian forces that were occupying areas like Austria as late as the mid-1600's. Which starts to help explaining a lot of the unrest in Eastern Europe since the fall of the iron curtain.

    2. Re:Thank goodness, mod parent up please? by Deflatamouse! · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. Many subjects still being taught in schools are very Eurocentric. When I was back in school, I really wanted to learn about India, Japan, and China, and in general Asia and the rest of the non-European world. But we always skipped over those chapters. (I remember we skipped chapters on Islam, India, China, and Japan, and probably others.) I managed to read those chapters on my own (although they are still written with a Eurocentric viewpoint :( ), but I bet half of my classmates never read them. It is no wonder why this country, supposedly the most educated or 'civilized', is so full of ignorant folks who knew nothing about the rest of the world.

  77. He also said once... by Bake · · Score: 1

    "Icelanders are the smartest people on earth,
    they were clever enough to discover America and smart enough to lose it again."

  78. Peacefully ? by MosesJones · · Score: 2


    Err you are kidding right ? Most Native American tribes would be classified as nomadic warriors. Sure they didn't have guns or heavy artillery but these were not zen buddist style people just looking for enlightenment.

    History with Rose tinted glasses, the world where no "primitive" culture ever had a problem with war, murder, rape, incest. All of those problems are a result of the modern world.

    And anyway... the Chinese are "White", Phonecians' were "white" ? Native Americans' are probably Russians anyway... damn commies :-)

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:Peacefully ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mods, please mod this guy up.

    2. Re:Peacefully ? by the+phantom · · Score: 2

      "Nomadic warriors?!" Where the hell do you get this phrase? A large number of native groups could have been defined as "hunter-gatherers" (foragers and collectors; travellers and prcessors -- depends on who you read, but I digress). Hunter-gatherers are the most nomadic societies, but they also have the least capacity for warfare. They live in small kin groups, with generally fewer than 50 people. How the hell are you going to wage war with only 50 people!!

      Also, these groups don't tend to have a strong sense of personal proporty, so what are they going to fight a war over? Wars are fought by pastroalist and agrarian societies that have the resources to provide a specialized fighting caste/guild/group. Granted, the Aztec, Inca, Maya, Anasazi, Iriquois and a whole mess of others probably reached this level, but hunter-gatherers tend not to fight wars, thus your statement that "most Native American tribes would be classified as nomadic warriors," is just wrong.

    3. Re:Peacefully ? by MosesJones · · Score: 2

      Here ? maybe where the phrase "fierce nomadic warriors" is used. Or possibly because of the fact that most tribes have the concept ot "warrior" when classifying members.

      As for what you fight wars over... FOOD, Hunting Ranges etc etc. Wars don't have to be on a grand scale, 50 people v 50 people can still be a war to the 100 people involved.

      --
      An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  79. Chinese nautical technology by danny · · Score: 5, Informative
    A good book for those interested in Chinese nautical technology is the third volume of the abridgement of Needham's Science and Civilisation in China . That looks at the Chinese invention of the compass as well as shipbuilding and the great voyages of exploration.

    Here is one quote relevant to your question:

    ... in 1962 an actual rudder-post of one of Cheng Ho's treasure-ships was discovered... This great timber is 11 metres long ... Using accepted formulae, the approximate length of the ship on which it has been used comes out between 146 metres and 163 metres depending on different assumptions about the draught of the vessel.
    Even 163 metres is only 530 feet, of course, but it shows that 1000 feet isn't that unbelieveable.

    Danny.

    --
    I have written over 900 book reviews
    1. Re:Chinese nautical technology by markmoss · · Score: 5, Informative

      This makes me suspect that the accepted formulae may be a bit off when it comes to these ships. I am not a naval architect, but I find the idea of 500+ foot wooden ocean-going ships quite dubious from a strength of materials standpoint. The problem is, the ocean has very big waves; even an aircraft carrier has times when one big wave is holding it up in the middle with both ends out of water, and this will alternate with both ends in waves and the middle hanging. Wooden structures just don't scale up in strength well, and I don't think the Chinese managed to build better than the best 19th century shipyards. Find the whole keel, and I'll believe it -- but if it's strong enough, I would think it was so thick and heavy as to make the ship unusable for cargo and too expensive to ever be built except by imperial decree. Written records would have to be carefully evaluated, to make sure that neither errors of measuring units nor poetic license had exaggerated the size.

    2. Re:Chinese nautical technology by markmoss · · Score: 2

      Another poster later on says that these ships were known to history (although he isn't confirming the size). They were called "treasure ships" and were built to show off the Emperor's wealth and power to other nations. That is, impractically large ships loaded with gold and gems. I still don't believe 1,000 feet, but 400 feet is possible.

      I do wonder: did they send several normal-sized ships along with each monster to act as tugs and tenders?

  80. So what? by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1


    What's all the fuss about these guy that weren't even able to get where they were supposed to go. Bloody incompetents if you want my opinion.

    --
    "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
  81. *How* big did he say the ships were? by p4k · · Score: 1
    "Sailing in 1,000-foot-long ships with nine massive junk-style sails"

    That's seriously big by modern standards (the QE2 is 963 feet long to get some idea).

    Could they really build ships that big in those days? I've certainly never heard of archaeologists finding remains of ancient ships even close to that size. If the chinese really could build ships that size then, I am very, very impressed, but I've got serious doubts.

  82. Columbus used maps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the article, Columbus used maps, supposedly written out by the chinese 72 years before.

    If that was true, and the maps were accurate, it doesn't make sense.

    Columbus wasn't looking to discover a new world. He was looking for a better route to china for trading purposes. Discovering this continent actually defeated his purpose, and the queen of spain wasn't really happy with him.

  83. It's obvious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Exactly as this study suggests! 1000 AD, carousing Vikings stumble accross North America. After half a milennium of heavy breeding and hard natural selection, more civilized Europeans arrive and discover "native" Americans.

    :-] cheers,
    thmx

  84. Does that mean... by nicklott · · Score: 1

    ...they can put in a territorial claim now?

  85. Nothing new, there. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2
    Who do tou think Guatemala was named after?

    Gautama Buddha, for one, after some other chinese explorers went down the western American coast, and settled (in Guatemala) for a little while, at least 500 years before Christofo Colombari.

    1. Re:Nothing new, there. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      For those of you wondering where Guatemala *actually* comes from, it means "Land of the Trees" in Maya-Toltec.

      Chris Mattern

    2. Re:Nothing new, there. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2
      For those of you wondering where Guatemala *actually* comes from, it means "Land of the Trees" in Maya-Toltec.
      Don't blame me, here is my source... Take it as you whish.
  86. Even so, the Chinese werent the first by dmnic · · Score: 1

    the Scandinavians were here at least 300-400(if not more) years before Columbus. plus, in the Mammoth Caves of Kentucky/Tennessee pre-Roman Jewish coins were found in sedimentary rock dating back before Columbus.
    granted, Columbus was the first well-known explorer(if you want to call him that) to find and *announce* the new land, but even he thought he had reached Asia...

  87. Does this lessen the accomplishment of crossing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this lessen the accomplishment of crossing an ocean? No.

    Woohoo! I crossed the ocean last year with mom and dad on a trip, does that mean I get some sort of reckognition? ;)

  88. does this mean.... by MediumWare · · Score: 1

    that the US will now get a HongKong-like statue? that would be funny :-)

  89. Admiral Zheng He Day? by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

    Does this mean we will now be celebrating "Admiral Zheng He Day" instead of "Columbus Day"? I can hardly wait to crack out the firecrackers and paper dragon!

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  90. more info... by dmnic · · Score: 1

    after reading the article linked, it is true that Columbus, Magellan and others used maps previously drawn, but these maps are also thought to be Portugeuse/Templar in authorship. if your familliar with the Holy Wars, then youve probably heard of the Knights Templar, then considered to be the best seafarers known. when the Catholic Inquisition had them rounded up and murdered in the early 1100's(the origin of Friday The 13th), many Templars fled to safer lands/waters in Portugal, Scotland and some even suspect North America. granted, there is very little evidence to base this on, but the Templars were known to possess maps/knowledge that most thought impossible.
    just some of my $.02

  91. The key is ABC by yerricde · · Score: 2

    How do you discover a country when there are already people living there?

    <bias class="eurocentric">
    You "discover" a country when you are the first to bring alphabetic writing there. The Native Americans didn't discover the New World; most of them had no writing (save the Maya nation). The Chinese didn't discover the New World; they wrote with ideograms. The Vikings can lay a claim because at least they had a runic alphabet. We believe the claims of Columbus, Vespucci, and others for discovering different parts of the New World because they were able to write home using a small number of distinct symbols that somewhat closely correspond to the sound of the language.
    </bias>

    whatever...
    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:The key is ABC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Irish used an alphabet too. In fact, they used Latin-derived scripts and Ogham.

      St. Brendan _wrote_ _down_ the details of the construction of his ship and the journey in Irish-dialect Church Latin. That's how we know about it...

      More wierdly, scratches on rocks in certain parts of the US actually look suspiciously like Ogham.

  92. That would explain... by dbretton · · Score: 2

    Why my Kung Pao chicken looks like it's older than my grandmother...

  93. 1000 feet? (Yes I know, Redundant) by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    I doubt that.

    I just don't see aircraft carrier sized ships existing before steam locomotion.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:1000 feet? (Yes I know, Redundant) by SteamedGeek · · Score: 1

      Why not... chinese intercoastal junks were large even in the 1200's. They had the technology to build these wide, shallow draft sailing vessels to very large sizes. Hell, there are viking records of their best long ships being much larger than ships of Columbus's time. Remember, this is an empire that had very advanced sciences for the age. Woodworking, chemistry, metalurgy, and mathmatics were right up there with things the Europeans were not able to do for another 200 - 300 years.

      --
      Life Sucks... Have a Beer and a Smoke then Smile Damnit!!!
  94. Nationalism by PegQuin · · Score: 1

    Interesting and strange sense of nationalism going on here. This topic has a long history of cultures who claim this "discovery" with a sense of arrogant pride. There was probably some intelligent life here before all of these claims. Think about it, do any of you really give a fuck? What does it have to do with any of you?

    --
    PegQuin--I've got a sneakin' suspicion
  95. Uh, am I the only one? by penguindung · · Score: 1

    That remembers that natives (from Asia) were the first ones here thousands of years ago? Columbus is remembered because of the holiday...

    ooooo -- Penguin Dung

  96. Cook was a great man, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one of the national heroes of New Zealand, but there were others before him: Abel Tasman for one. Don't forget Australia used to be called New Holland. (And Tasmania was van Dieman's land).

  97. Why Columbus discovered America by Guiri · · Score: 1

    When Chinese and maybe Vikings went to America, they were just sailing and got into these places, but no one told them before arriving that those lands didn't exist.

    In the other side, at Columbus time, everyone though the world was flat, and that at the end of atlantic ocean there was nothing. They thought that if you navigated Atlantic ocean to its end, you would go directly to hell. Europeans made maps of the world, and there was no America in those maps. Did the chinese or vikings made maps of the world? They didn't.

    Columbus believed that the world wasn't flat, so he could reach "Las Indias" (east-asia) in a shortest way crossing the atlantic ocean.So Columbus with three boats full of (crazy) spanishmen did this hazardous travel, when everyone thought they were going to die.

    In fact, when Columbus arrived there, they thought they were in "Las Indias", they didn't know they discovered a new continent, just because a mistake in Columbus' calculations. Columbus died thinking he went to "Las Indias".

    It was after a while, when they knew that was a new continent, and then they included this new land into the world maps.

    That's why he "discovered" America, because no one believed that there were lands after the atlantic ocean, and there was nothing after the atlantic ocean in world maps.

    1. Re:Why Columbus discovered America by f00zbll · · Score: 1
      If I'm reading you correctly, which I may not, the logic is the following:

      1. Europeans believed the world was flat
      2. Columbus believed he could get to india sailing acrss the atlantic ocean
      3. Columbus wanted to prove Europeans are stupid
      4. Columbus wanted to get rich
      5. Columbus thought america was india
      6. because Europeans and Columbus were both wrong and stupid, he is credited with discovering America. Even though the name was coined by Amerigo.

      If that is a correct interpretation, then I ask "why are we arguing over who is more stupid?"

    2. Re:Why Columbus discovered America by nickos · · Score: 1

      Did the chinese or vikings made maps of the world? They didn't.
      Yes they did - http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/vinland/

    3. Re:Why Columbus discovered America by Guiri · · Score: 1

      1. Europeans believed the world was flat

      Almost everyone believed the world was flat.

      3. Columbus wanted to prove Europeans are stupid

      Did you mean were stupid? XP.Anyway, he wanted to prove everyone was wrong. I'm pretty sure you knew the world wasn't flat since you were born, but some people was tought about that.

      4. Columbus wanted to get rich. Absolutely.

      6. because Europeans and Columbus were both wrong and stupid, he is credited with discovering America. Even though the name was coined by Amerigo.

      Americo Vespucio realized that those lands were a new continent, so those new lands got his name. But Cristobal Columbus was the one who risked his life to prove there were lands after the atlantic ocean. He didn't put his feet on America for the first time (native americans did), but he showed it to the rest of the world/civilized world/Europe for the first time.

      If that is a correct interpretation, then I ask "why are we arguing over who is more stupid?"

      Not everyone know everything like you do, that's why we need some smart people to "discover" things.

    4. Re:Why Columbus discovered America by Guiri · · Score: 1

      If genuine, the Vinland map..

      It's not proven to be genuine yet. Anyway, I can't see America continent at Europe's left. Looks like there is nothing after the atlantic.

    5. Re:Why Columbus discovered America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europeans did -not- believe the world was flat. They new it was a sphere. Columbus was opposed by the scholars because they also knew -how big- the world was, and that Columbus' mis-measurement making the world closer to Mars in size would result in he and his crew perishing LONG before they reached the Spice Islands.

      But people like to repeat lies.

    6. Re:Why Columbus discovered America by f00zbll · · Score: 1

      I never claimed to be smart. Smartass yes! I hardly think he discovered anything. More like stumbled across the atlantic. Had columbus been a good astronomer and studied the motions of the night sky, he would have realized the circular motion and been able to calculate the radius of the earth. But that would have been scientific, which was not his strength. The Aztec were already capable of high precision astronomy according to some researchers. Several shows on pyramid builders have proven it mathematically. He was brave. He had a lot more courage than I do, so he should be celebrated for trying to cross an ocean without a clue and insufficient supplies. Then again, what do I know?

  98. What? by bluecalix · · Score: 1

    You are claiming that the chinese and vikings never attacked people, stole land or had intentions to destroy another group of people? uhhh.....ok....sure...

    --
    e x p e c t d e l a y . c o m
    1. Re:What? by ywl · · Score: 1

      Don't be so defensive.

      He meaned here in the America continents.

  99. They Lost a War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We won the war.

    Like any other war, it has a winner and a loser.

    We did not treat the losers like they were equal or better than us, surprise surprise.

    We broke a lot of treaties, then and now.

    As far as "Peacefully Inhabiting", that is as unenlightened as saying that Columbus discovered America (and all its inhabitants).

    It was a land war, they lost, we took the land. No we didn't have a birth right to it, and nobody at the time believed that. It is unfortunate that people have this feeling today, since it allows for guilt, when no guilt is needed.

    So the Native Americans lost a war, lets move on. They don't deserve reperations, apologies, or anything of the sort. They lost a war.

    1. Re:They Lost a War by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and who the hell is "WE" in this context? Care to divulge your lineage, immigrant boy?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    2. Re:They Lost a War by letxa2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It was a land war, they lost, we took the land

      Well said. That's exactly what I've thought for decades but it is obviously entirely non-PC to say (or even think) it.

      We also had a land war with Mexico 150 years ago and took close to half of their land. You don't see anyone crying about how we treated the Mexicans.

      Oh well, the contradictions of the "politically correct" crowd. :)

    3. Re:They Lost a War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      and that would be true if in fact we had actually gone to war or declared war at any point (military exercises are what we would consider the activities today). Dismissing the fact that 'americans' however far in our past lied, cheated, stole, murdered, misrepresented, and raped the 'native' population of the americas allows us the comfort of continuing in the same vein of action without remorse or consideration. If we do not look to our past, we cannot learn from it and grow to be a better people.

      Everyone DESERVES respect. Our own constitution is based on 'unalienable' rights afforded to man (all man, mankind). In the government and individual actions in the slaughter of societies, tribes and individuals (something we should very closely equate to the Jewish Holocaust) 'we' denied those people of their 'unalienable' rights.

      The sad part is that lets say we "move on", we "move past" what happened and the wrong doings of generations past... what are we doing today to make sure that 1) we preserve what little of that culture is left 2) we ensure that the native american as a bloodline doesn't dissappear entirely. And the answer is 'very little'. I don't believe in 'affirmative action' I believe in 'equality'. 'We' put more effort into building 3rd world countries up than we do in building up the nations that exist within this country. We need to look to the past to see what we can avoid repeating and what we may need to correct so that WE (all of us) have a more prosporous and rich future.

    4. Re:They Lost a War by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      MOD HUMANITARIAN UP!

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    5. Re:They Lost a War by Sharkeys-Day · · Score: 1

      I hate the "PC" crowd as much as anyone, and you have a valid point, but you are oversimplifying it quite a bit.

      I was not a simple land war. I was in fact a whole series of wars over a period of a couple centuries. Many of these wars ended in treaties, in true European fashion. Many of the following wars began when the settlers wanted more land or wanted something on the treaty land. At which point the terms of previous treaties were ignored or forgotten.

      The valid condemnations are primarily for breaking treaties so often. After the Mexican war you mention, a treaty was made, and the border has stayed the same since then.

    6. Re:They Lost a War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      England kicked the crap out of France in Quebec and Canada has been paying for it since

    7. Re:They Lost a War by aoeuid · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a Canadian, I am absolutely outraged and disgusted by the supreme court ruling a few days ago that thousands of Indians do not need to pay any taxes whatsoever. Because of an apparent 'oral understanding', the indians weren't even bright enough to get it written down on paper. I just don't understand how someone can claim any rights based on their ancenstry. I mean, we were both born into this country by the same degree of chance, it's not my fault that I didn't happen to be indian. So because I'm not indian, I have to pay upwards of 50% tax on my earnings, while they can still get all the free health care they want and use our roads and get the protection of our military service for free. Its absolute, complete, fucking bullshit.

      To any non-Canadians, this is a brand new ruling, that link has todays date. Perhaps if they live on reserves and actually hunt to sustain themselves, fine, let them get away with not paying taxes because their great-great-great-great-grandparents couldn't defend themselves. In summary, we all have the same rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, people can't help what country or ethnicity they are born into, its completely chance, and no person should be rewarded for what was complete chance. Especially if these indians think they want to live off their reserves and use our evil resources for free. This seriously upsets me.

    8. Re:They Lost a War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Bleh, I hate people that hold modern 'acceptable' standards to the past.

      The europeans had better germs and technology, they replaced a population that at the time hadn't evolved enough to repel them. this happend throughout the world and throughout every culture. Europeans were no better or worse than any other popluation in the world from a 'human rights' point of view, and today arguably much better. If the native americans culture was more evolved than the europeans, they would of done the same think to europe. This is called evolution.

      Today we have as a race evolved to a point that we have tamed darwin, so other values hold true.

      -lp

    9. Re:They Lost a War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, lots of people piss and moan over the deal that the Mexicans got, mostly Mexicans and Americans of Mexican decent. Mostly because the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny" was essentially a racialist ideology and the non-whites got the short end of the stick. (And that's not a PCism -- check the primary sources.)

      For example, it's suspected that the existence of gold in California was kept secret until shortly after the territory could be secured for the US. There were all sorts of other ingenious semi-legal landgrabs going on -- they Mexicans basically just got outfoxed, so you can imagine that there might still be some resentment. It's just hard difficult to portray the Mexicans and 'noble' in any sense.

    10. Re:They Lost a War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racism, racism, racism, blah blah blah.

      Look at Mexico today, and the USA today (or maybe the USA 50 years ago, before this "racism" crap got out of hand). Which would you rather live in? Which is more progressive, more advanced, more liveable? Which is the cesspool of corruption, poverty, ignorance, filth, and crime?

      Hooray for "racist" Manifest Destiny; we got to turn most of North America into a real modern country, not an extended version of Mexico. And yet now, thanks to fear of being called a "racist" we are undoing everthing, for fear of one little word.

      I hope you PC idiots are happy now, because you aren't going to able to get away from avoiding the consequences of your actions this time.

    11. Re:They Lost a War by CmdrTaco+(editor) · · Score: 1
      You have a good argument, but unfortunately the U.S. constitution makes no mention of unalienable rights. It is, however, mention in the declaration of independence:

      ...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

    12. Re:They Lost a War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the Mexicans are slowly taking that land back.

    13. Re:They Lost a War by Broccolist · · Score: 3, Insightful
      They may get tax breaks, but on the whole, being a native Indian still sucks. Personally, I'm glad that 'complete chance' didn't decide to make me one of them. The rate of unemployment, alchoholism and suicide is way higher among them than the norm. This, in a sense, is a moral justification for the tax break, since all these problems can plausibly be traced back to our society's historical abuse of the Indians.

      Anyway, even if you don't accept that argument, it's not worth being seriously upset about. The fact that they don't have to pay taxes doesn't bother me too much, since it makes their miserable lives at least a bit brighter.

    14. Re:They Lost a War by aoeuid · · Score: 1

      What's stopping any indian from moving off the reserve and getting a real job in a real city? Anything? Not that I've ever heard. You honestly think its our fault their kids sit around sniffing gas all day because they have nothing better to do? Theres something seriously fucked about any parents who would let their kids be filmed by CBC television sniffing this gas and saying how cool it is, and let it be played on the national news countless times. Like, do people honestly think thats still our fault, just because my distant ancestors introduced them to alcohol?

    15. Re:They Lost a War by grunchman · · Score: 1

      there never was a war. that's the problem, according to some people. if war had been declared then the conquest of first nations lands could be justified.
      in any event, i'm a white male Canadian. i have serious issues with the way that the whole "native" issue is dealt with.
      for one thing, being a racist is allowed if you're first nations. in fact it's encouraged. in my home town we have an annual native hockey tournament that only people of first nations descent are allowed to participate in. should we try to organize a white only hockey tournament, i can only imagine the panic! yet the native hockey tournament has passed without notice year after year.
      another issue is the idea of the native as a "steward of the land". that is complete horse sh--. to believe that someone will respect the environment more because of their ethnicity is pure crap. it's up there with Hitler's ideas of Aryanism.
      another issue that i have is the word "native". i was born in British Columbia and yet i am referred to as a non-native. this pisses me off like nothing else that i can describe. somehow i am less connected to this land -the only land that i have ever lived in- because my skin colour is white. i AM a native of Canada. if people want to be PC then be universal about it.
      the last point that i want to make is this. many of the peoples who moved to this land started their lives in pretty awful conditions similar to those on many reserves. Irish dockworkers and African slaves are two examples. how then, did these two groups manage to progress through society when the First Nations have not? discrimination was a valid excuse a few decades ago, but today it is not. every job that i've ever applied for i've been asked if i was "native" because of affirmitive action legislation. the reason that poverty has remained such a huge problem on many reserves is twofold. first, handouts have become a handicap. people are told from their youngest days that they have been defeated, that Canadian society hates them and that the proper course is to complain and eventually you'll get a handout. the second problem is the MASSIVE corruption in the tribal governments. i can't get into this too much, but i've dated the daughter of a former chief and let me just say that they get away with WAY too much, often at the expense of their own people.

      --
      paranoia breeds confidence - Brazil
    16. Re:They Lost a War by NateE · · Score: 1

      Commenting only on this AC's last paragraph. The US Federal Government (maybe States too?) put certain troublesome Native American groups on isolated reservations a long time ago. Of course better wordy, justifications were used about this.

      This had the side-effect of cutting these groups off from growing into the US culture and preventing them from entering the job market. As soon as any group falls too far behind in this way. You get self-reinforcing behavior by default. Americans don't like to hear, that only new generations have a chance to correct their luck of birth.

      How can I back this up?

      I grew up very near, but never interacting with, individuals from a similar, self-sufficient and quite decent group. The Pennsylvania Amish and Mennonite. They were with-in walking distance in just about all directions.

      Take my word that these two groups behave similarly. Especially, with what happens to the kids growing to adult-hood. Of course, some individuals break the cycle. These are the kids who grow up and don't come back. Without numbers from a survey, I would still say the odds aren't good.

    17. Re:They Lost a War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You have a good argument, but unfortunately the U.S. constitution makes no mention of unalienable rights. It is, however, mention in the declaration of independence:


      The Bill of Rights is a set of amendments to the Constitution. That said, the US constitution actually does make mention of unalienable rights. :)
    18. Re:They Lost a War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Racialist", not "racist", you lowbrow. As in the "Manifest Destiny of the White Race" which was a nice racialist cover for the greatest land ripoff scheme in history.

      But thanks for the inspiring KKK stump speech! (and let us all know when you get those teeth fixed)

    19. Re:They Lost a War by qta · · Score: 1

      And you are a native America?

    20. Re:They Lost a War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The Bill of Rights is a set of amendments to the Constitution. That said, the US constitution actually does make mention of unalienable rights. :)

      Taco was quoting the Declaration of Independence, not the Bill of Rights. Two separate docs, and the DoI is NOT part of the Constitution.

    21. Re:They Lost a War by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      nope, born in England of English parents. Great great grandparents were Irish and Welsh respectively

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    22. Re:They Lost a War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether or not someone is consistent or not has nothing to do with whether these wars were just or not. If you think that might makes right, then you can't get on any moral high ground about anything including wtc. Oh, the contradictions of right wing idiots.

    23. Re:They Lost a War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >the indians weren't even bright enough to get it >written down on paper.

      How many languages do you you know of the peoples here who lived here longer than you did? If you don't know their language, you can't call them dumb for not knowing how to write in a language they were just exposed to. Nor can you judege them for not knowing customs they were never exposed to. Besides, in many cases when there were contracts, they were overlooked. Also, you seem to think that it's ok to lie to someone if they don't write anything down. That's a radical attitude, certainly not conservative at all as we conservatives believe in old fashioned values, honesty include. I guess you are a radical leftist.

    24. Re:They Lost a War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "in fact it's encouraged. in my home
      town we have an annual native hockey tournament that only people of first nations descent are
      allowed to participate in. should we try to organize a white only hockey tournament, i can only
      imagine the panic!"

      If you gave all land back and all priviledges that come from being white to natives including more wealth (on the average), the old boys network, more respect, less stigma then you can start to be racist. But imagine the panic when someone gives a tiny sliver back to the people it was stolen from. :)

    25. Re:They Lost a War by foqn1bo · · Score: 1



      Indeed. As did happen in Kuwait before the gulf war. As was the case in Afghanistan when Soviet troops invaded prior to the 1980 olympics. As was the case during WWII when hitler invaded europe. There is a difference between a war of dispute and a full on invasion of an otherwise peaceful populace that has not caused you any trouble other than living on land that you want. Perhaps you were asleep during your politics classes, but it is pretty much common political doctrine these days that use of uninitiated force is wrong. And if you'd like a philosophical doctrine to back it up, I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.

      We did not treat the losers like they were equal or better than us, surprise surprise.
      No shit, really?

      So the Native Americans lost a war, lets move on. They don't deserve reperations, apologies, or anything of the sort. They lost a war.

      You're absolutely right. And while we're at it, why the hell don't we get rid of holocaust memorials, and the like. The Jews of WWII Europe lost a war with Nazi Germany, didn't they? Ooooh, now I've pissed you off. You see, that pushes your buttons because in this society it would be nearly impossible to show a lack of compassion towards the unspeakable evil and suffering of the holocaust without being labled a racist. And you, being such an enlightened individual, wouldn't stand for that. But let's be honest, Jack. There is no difference. Genocide is genocide. And when you compare the modern military cohesion, numbers, and firepower against that which the Native American populations had to defend themselves with, it is a really sickening thing indeed. Much like the holocaust, thank you very much.

      It is unfortunate that people have this feeling today, since it allows for guilt, when no guilt is needed.

      The only people who feel guilty are those who have guilt issues. The purpose of keeping a strong position or sentiment about an event from the past is to make sure that it doesn't happen again. I don't hold myself personally responsible for what happened in the past, but I damn well hold myself responsible for our future, as any conscious and responsible person should.

      Yeah, they lost a war. And who ever said that all wars are virtuous? While were on the subject of all this, how do you feel about Osama bin Laden trying to destroy our country and our culture? Asshole.

  100. What about the Basques? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me add one more to the list of people "discovering" america before Columbus: the Basques. They were here fishing and getting spices long before and nobody ever mentions them!

  101. native americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    probably got here before the chinese. sorry.

  102. Spam by macdaddy · · Score: 2

    Is that why they spam (or allow the spamming) the shit out of us in the US? They want to convince us to change the history books? Baa ha haa hah haaaaa

  103. We already know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    We already know that the gap-toothed Spaniards and Brits weren't the first to find the land.

    They were just the first who were so stupid to think that yanking this cesspit of culture death from the canoe rats would be worth their time.

    And that's the story of the good ole U S of fucking A!

    Is it any surprise it turned into a culture of people who sell their youth's future into financial slavery, and leaders who have to be protected from its own populace?

    I discovered a red anthill once too, but I was smart enough not to stick my pecker in!

  104. Vikings before him by realberen · · Score: 0

    And Norwegian Vikings were there before the chinese. In other words:

    Norwegians
    Chinese
    Colombus

    And of course, we were all bested by pre-hestoric man who just strolled across, taking over the entire continent and forming large and different cultures. But hey, it's just about us. Hooray for the Vikings!

  105. Black History by Rastus+T.+Brown · · Score: 1

    Black Africans were the first to discover America. Sorry for the Chinese guys, but the discovery of America belongs to the black race. There is nothing which the honkies have discovered that black Africans and other races have discovered before. Whitey should wake up to the truth that he is nothing more than a po' copycat of the real man, the Black Man!

    1. Re:Black History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear the black Africans discovered written language too. Too bad it was 10 years ago.

    2. Re:Black History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, and they have also discovered gang banging, rap music, east coast/ west coast rivalry, crack cocaine dealing, car jacking, how to fill american prisons, how to bilk welfare by having a kid a year until they are rich, cadillacs, an entirely new unspeakable language called Eubonics, and a wide range of other facinating things. What is the point of this trollish post... jeesu cripo. I posted the above just because I can say stupid things too about race... doesn't make them true. I hate racist posts! Ancient socities may very well have come out of the African continent, but given the wide divergence of phsical attributes, and the potential (if slight) of interbreeding between Homo Sapien and Neanderthals for race variance, who can say where the 'cradel of mankind' really originated at. Africa is a good bet, far better than the Fertile Crescent as taught only a few decades before in US schools (and elsewhere). The Chinese and several South American (some could toss in Egypt as well) societies were far more advanced than Europe, India, or North America was in the BC years, and even into the 1200's - 1500's. So were some arabic national entities and empires. I can only think of one good example of African culture, Ethiopia and the empires of that region being rather advanced in culture, science, and politices... I am no expert though.

    3. Re:Black History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One certainly hopes that this is a joke, but, if not ... there is no evidence supporting the idea that the Empire of Mali ever launched a successful voyage to any other continent, despite the fond imaginings of some less-than-rigorous Afrocentrists. The South American stone heads used as the basis of this argument are not amenable to the Afrocentric interpretation, for both physiological and cultural reasons. More importantly, Malian nautical technology was, and still largely is, based on the flat-bottomed boats used to navigate the Niger. Because of Mali's successful cross-Saharan trade, there was little economic incentive for the Empire to develop ships capable of crossing the Mediterranean, let alone the Atlantic.

      It's sad that Afrocentrism has been successful in disguising the very real accomplishments of African societies. There's a lot to be proud of in Africa; there's no need to create elaborate fantasies of world domination to take their place.

      -Baka!

  106. vikings also came to america.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a little info, but vikings (leiv eriksson)
    came to america(new foundland) about 500 years
    before columbus...

  107. American as a Contenent not as a Country by brodiedreamyou.ca · · Score: 1

    As I read alot of these post, i'm not sure if everyone relises that when people say he discovered america they mean the contient, Columbis himself never actually set food in the land now owned by the U.S.A :)

    and i'm pretty sure that the vikings landed in what is now Canada

  108. Prime Directive by line-bundle · · Score: 1

    I am beginning to suspect that only the Europeans did not have the prime directive. It seems all other nations left America alone, and did not `claim' it.

  109. Get back in line by Jayman2 · · Score: 1
    The Chinese will just have to join the queue of people that apparently discovered America before Columbus. In addition Columbus actually did not discover the American main land, but landed in the carribean. So just to round up the current list of America discoveries: That just about sums the current list up I believe. Did i miss out anyone?
    --
    -.sig sauer-
    1. Re:Get back in line by T-Punkt · · Score: 1

      You have forgotten Didrik Pining in your list.

  110. Columbus did not discovered America!!! by alfgon · · Score: 1

    He just stumble on it. He really wanted to reach Japan.

    1. Re:Columbus did not discovered America!!! by Seehund · · Score: 1

      That is why native Americans became known as Japanians.

      --
      Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
  111. City Chicken and City Beef by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that a euphemism for "cat"?

  112. Everybody knows... by haggar · · Score: 1

    ..that the first to discover America were the vikings.

    --
    Sigged!
  113. MOD PARENT UP UP UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm waiting for the Chinese to start claiming they were the first to the moon as well.

    We will soon be deluged with all sorts of spewing from the Chicoms, stating "We invented it first!" a la the Soviets. And the slashbots will eat it up as if it were Stallman's unwiped asshole.

    I'm suprised it hasn't happened already.

  114. At the right time and place. by metacell · · Score: 1

    I think Columbus just happened to be at the right place at the right time. Spain, Portugal, France and England needed new lands to loot and colonise, and had the technology to do it. European culture has to take both the blame and praise for what happened during the next 500 years, not the person who happened to make the discovery.

  115. Chinese not first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A small group of Vikings were here before that, and the Native Americans (of course) were the first.

  116. Portuguese? .....Chinese/European mummies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised that Portuguese people weren't the first to "discover" the Americas. They are very good sailors, they have been fishing off Newfounland for centuries. There's even a town called Port Aux Basques, I know, I know not the same as Portuguese but close.

    And as some jokingly asked before about someone discovering the Chinese, it did happen. The show NOVA had a program on mummies from Western China but around 3000 years ago it wasn't even China and the mummified people were European(or from that area anyway). I guess that area of China these days wants to separate and so any talk of these people preceding the people there now is grounds for execution.

  117. northguy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry British "researcher" dude - Canada has been populated for 20,000 years, so I think the Chinese were a bit late.

  118. I find this surprising because ... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

    I would have sworn it was Native Americans that first discovered America 8^}

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  119. This has been taught in universities for years. by Self-Important · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I took a world history course only two years ago in which I learned about the Chinese treasure ships. They were intended to be these massive, floating testements to the wealth and power of the Chinese civilization. The point of the treasure ship expeditions was to impress upon other cultures the strength of the Chinese emperor. As nine-sailed behemoths weighed down with gold, silk, and other riches, the treasure ships didn't disappoint.

    One of the more hotly contested historical points is why China turned inward when it was, hands down, *the* strongest nation in the world in the latter half of the fifteenth century. It was on the verge of an industrial revolution predating the British one by hundreds of years, but that never happened: A new emperor came to power who associated the treasure ship expeditions with both the old emperor and the eunuch power regime, and the Chinese policy of expansionism came to a quick end.

    It was previously known that the Chinese made it around the tip of Africa, and even as far as South America. Only a small number of people accept early Chinese circumnaviagtion of the globe as truth. I'm one of them, and so was my professor.

    1. Re:This has been taught in universities for years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The story of the decline of the Chinese empire is remarkable testimony for the importance of free markets and stable, continual governments for advances. Because Chinese exploration had neither a commercial nor a lasting political motive -- both of which fueled the European expeditions -- it was easy and expedient for an incoming Emperor to kill off the projects that partially defined the reign of his predecessor.

      -Baka!

    2. Re:This has been taught in universities for years. by markmoss · · Score: 2

      I took a world history course only two years ago in which I learned about the Chinese treasure ships. They were intended to be these massive, floating testements to the wealth and power of the Chinese civilization.

      In other words, the treasure ships were mainly for show-off, like the Apollo moon landings. Once you've done it once, it's hard to see a reason to spend so much to do it again.

      Except that I'm sure the treasure ships did reveal possible lucrative trade routes. Why didn't Chinese merchants follow and keep these routes open? My guess is that the new emperor was worried that new ideas and technology would come back along the trade routes and de-stabilize the empire. Also, Chinese traders tend to settle somewhere outside the emperor's (or chairman's, or whatever they call it now) influence, and ignore imperial decrees. You can't allow too much of that and still remain an absolute monarch of the kingdom at the center of the world... So, IIRC the emperors began restricting the size of ships, excluding foreign traders and taxing and regulating Chinese traders, and resolutely rejecting new technology whether foreign or invented at home, and so on until they'd put their country so far behind that the British could overthrow that dynasty just by giving a semi-barbarian tribe (the Manchus) a few cannon and muskets.

  120. FUCK Columbus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You Americans and your fucking Columbus!

    Columbus! Columbus! Columbus!

    Do you realize that every year you idiots celebrate a holiday for somebody who never even set foot on what is now your territory? Why don't you redo the holiday and name it after a real American hero...OJ Simpson!

    Then there's the fact that he was beaten by the Vikings, (from wherever they came) by 500 fucking years! Never mind all the speculation about the Chinese, the Phoenicians, the Romans etc...etc...etc...just go up to St. Anthony, Nfld, to a place called L'Anse Aux Meadows, and see for yourself just how irrefutably fucking late your misplaced god Columbus really was!

    ...and next time you come up with another American historical fuck-fact, at least get your information correct!

  121. Yep by TheFlu · · Score: 2

    Everyone else decided America just really sucked when they got here, and promptly headed back home.

  122. Chinese Archives by martijnd · · Score: 2, Interesting
    What is probably the most fascinating of the discovery is probably not that America was discovered by whom, but that a whole library of information (related to the chinese imperial archives) is becoming more and more accessible to Chinese and other researchers around the world.

    Imperial China kept detailed records on a day to day basis of communications and other records. A gold mine of unique historic information can be found in there.

    One gold nugged dug up by a French historian (sorry, don't have a link handy) descibes in detail a world journey and visit by a late 18th century British trade delegation that could thus be retraced as the British had kept diaries they published after their travels. The emperor had kept a day to day watch of their activities as they travelled through China and made detailed comments in the sidelines of the reports he was receiving on the foreigners.

    The British were out to sell horse drawn carriages, canons, clocks and other "high tech". They had visions of selling huge amounts of their products to China's immense population....

  123. Colombus didnt discover america by HairyBN · · Score: 1

    Vikings came to Newfoundland years before to fish, but we already knew that for a while they even teach it in high school history(well here at least).

  124. Does it matter? by asobala · · Score: 1

    The chinese (or vikings, or whatever) discovered america first. The British came and conducted the most successful invasion in history with minimal casualties on both sides because the defenders preferred to avoid conflict. In fact, no one ever saw them.

  125. Well this explains it... by stubear · · Score: 2

    Now I know why Americans LOVE chinese take out :)

  126. Duhhh... by Shuh · · Score: 1

    Many people "discovered" America well before Christopher Columbus, as evidenced by the fact many people were already here when he arrived.

  127. And what about the Madagascans etc by Dix · · Score: 1

    This sort of seafaring should be no surprise - Malays settled Madagascar about 0 AD.

    All the Pacific was settled over tens of thousands of years using large sailing canoes.

  128. Hmmm... Not first by SteamedGeek · · Score: 1

    Two schools of thought. First, what is "discovered"? Since native indians had been on the whole North/South American continent for up to 20K years, did anyone really discover it (other than the natives)?. Secondly, what about the ballast stone and other artifacts that date back further from both the South Pacific Islanders and an even earlier Chinese dynasty. There are even now quite a few historians and other academic types who think that there may have been a true 'Atlantis' and that this society had sailing vessels comparable to the 1400's as early as 3000 - 5000 years before, but sucumbed to a cataclysm related to the 'great flood' of noah's arc fame. The Europeans were certainly not first, and neither were the scandinavians. Maybe the Chinese, but then again 'what is discovery'?

    --
    Life Sucks... Have a Beer and a Smoke then Smile Damnit!!!
  129. It was the Irish by epepke · · Score: 2

    From Made in America by Bill Bryson (great book):

    No one knows who the first European visitors to the New World were. The credit generally goes to the Vikings, who reached the New World in about AD 1000, but there are grounds to suppose that others may have been there even earlier. An ancient Latin text, the Navigatio Sancti Brendani Abbatis (The Voyage of St. Brendan the Abbot), recounts with persuasive detail a seven-year trip to the New World made by this Irish saint and a band of acolytes some four centuries before the Viking--and this on the advice of another Irishman who claimed to have been there earlier still.

    Even the Vikings didn't think themselves the first. Their sagas record that when they first arrived in the New World they were chased from the beach by a group of wild white people. They subsequently heard stories from natives of a settlement of Caucasians who "wore white garments and...carried poles before them to which rags were attached"--precisely how an Irish religious procession would have looked to the uninitiated. (Intriguingly, five centuries later Columbus's men would hear a similar story in the Caribbean.) Whether by Irish or Vikings--or Italians or Welsh or Bretons or any of the other many groups for whom credit has been sought--crossing the Atlantic in the Middle Ages was not quite as daring a feat as it would at first appear, even allowing for the fact that it was done in small, open boats. The North Atlantic is conveniently scattered with islands that could serve as stepping-stones--the Shetland Islands, Faeroes, Iceland, Greenland, and Baffin. It would be possible to sail from Scandinavia to Canada without once crossing more than 250 miles of open sea.

  130. Chinese yes, by mrtransistor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Before I add my comments, let me just say that I have been studying archaeology for over 6 years, so I feel as if I am qualified to say a little bit about the facts behind this issue and some of the more ridiculous comments I've seen posted about it.

    1st, it is well known that multiple cultures "discovered" what has come to be known as America before Columbus did in 1492. First and foremost by far, of course, were the ancestors of the native peoples of America, who appear to have arrived in several waves of migration via the Alaskan land bridge and possibly via maritime travel from Polynesia. There are arguments about exactly how old the earliest sites (including Monte Verdi in South America, and Meadowcroft Rock Shelter in Pennsylvania) are, but most scholars accept them as being at least 10,000 years old and perhaps as old as 25,000 years. This beats anyone else by a long shot.

    After this migration, however, the ONLY incontrovertible archaeological evidence we have for precolumbian contact comes from Viking Sites of around 1000 AD, including L'Anse Aux Meadows, which I believe is in Newfoundland.

    The only other group that has any kind of solid archaeological claim to precolumbian discovery is the Chinese. Their presence seems to be attested by anchor stones found off the coast of California which closely match those from Chinese ship types which existed before the era of Columbus. There is, however, NO secure precolumbian artifactual evidence from the Chinese. This one's really a tossup, so I'd like to see what Menzies has to say.

    Now when it comes to all of these other claims - Egyptians, Subsaharan Africans, Phonecians, Welsh, etc. etc., what we're seeing is a lot of bad scholarship. Most of this can be traced to 19th century racist hyperdiffusional accounts which attempted to explain how monumental architecture and such could have been produced by such "primitive" (or in some accounts sub-human) people as the Native Americans. Most of these centered around the Egyptians, mainly due to superficial similarities between Egyptian Pyramids and Mesoamerican "pyramid" platforms, which in actuality are designed and built in entirely different ways. Furthermore, neither the Egyptians, nor even the Phonecians, who are often supposed to have ferried the Egyptians across the Atlantic, possessed the kind of ship technology which would make regular oceanic voyaging possible. These were unreinforced, open-decked, square-rigged boats with no navigational instruments. We're not talking Spanish Naos or Chinese Junks (or even Viking boats) here.

    The rest of the so-called evidence rests on overinterpretation of existing evidence (Olmec heads as evidence of African Contact, St. Brendan's Chronicles as an actual account - yeah, they just ran into Judas Iscariot in Massachussetts), proven hoaxes (Cuneiform tablets in Tennessee), or the psychotic ramblings of UFO cultists like Zecharia Sitchin.

    Anyway, despite my little tirade, I don't want to rule out that other civilizations couldhave made it to the Americas. There is just no evidence. So here is how it stands on Precolumbian contact:

    North Asians : Yes Vikings : Yes Chinese : Chances are pretty good Egyptians, Phonecians, Africans, Welsh : Highly Doubtful Everyone Else : Who the hell knows?

    1. Re:Chinese yes, by pclminion · · Score: 2
      most scholars accept them as being at least 10,000 years old and perhaps as old as 25,000 years. This beats anyone else by a long shot.

      25,000 years? I took a class on North American Prehistory (focused entirely on the original colonization and cultural development thereafter) and I read that 11,500 years is the oldest known-for-certain date. There were some studies, one major one in South America, that purported to show evidence of people as early as 13,000 (I think that was the date). But I never heard anything about 25,000 years ago.

      Can you explain?

    2. Re:Chinese yes, by egeorge · · Score: 1
      Sorry I don't have a good link or anything, I am regurgitating something I heard on TLC.

      The evidence for the 25k date is mostly linguistic. Studies of native american languages indicate a diffusion from south to north. Based on caclulations of how fast nomadic cultures can spread their linguistic ideas, people would have had to have been living in south america long before the 13k date.

      I am sure you can find the details with a quick search of the web (or the library).

    3. Re:Chinese yes, by elefantstn · · Score: 2

      Those linguistic studies you're referencing to give the 25k year date are very suspect. The linguistic classification and history of the Americas is subject to intense debate, and at this point, I would not put enough faith in them to supercede established archaeological evidence.

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    4. Re:Chinese yes, by mrtransistor · · Score: 3, Interesting
      If I remember correctly, Tom Dillehay wrote a book proposing very early dates for Monte Verde based on radiocarbon dates of layers associated w/ certain stone tools. There has been a lot of controversy, however, as to whether these artifacts were actually associated with the dated layers. The linguistic evidence is which one of the other posts mentions is based on the assumption of steady rates in linguistic mutation - something which I admit that I don't necessarily buy into.

      What you do have to keep in mind, though, is that Monte Verde is in Chile. If the Americas were populated solely via the Bering land bridge, then these people most likely would have taken many generations to not only travel all across two continents, but also to adapt lifeways suited to the new environments which they were encountering. The same goes for Meadowcraft, at least to a lesser extent. Even assuming an incredibly swift migration, you have to go back several centuries from even the latest dates to get to the date of the actual crossing into North America

      Unfortunately, if the earliest migrations southward took place along the pacific coast, any habitation sites have likely been submerged with the rise in sealevels following the alst ice age. Robert Ballard and his bunch have recently had a lot of success identifying submerged sites in the Black Sea, so it is conceivable that some of the earliest sites might be found, but as of yet, we still know next to nothing about them.

    5. Re:Chinese yes, by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Some Pacific islanders think it's normal to cross large chunks of the Pacific Ocean in what amount to overgrown outrigger canoes. So I'd hesitate to state that just because a particular civilization used open boats, they were incapable of covering oceanic distances. And tolerably accurate navigation by the stars dates back at least to classical times (I don't have an exact reference, but it was a LOOONG time ago), and likely was borrowed from someone else even then.

      OTOH, there is often a desire to believe that the most obscure or fantastic reference is the correct one. In that spirit, I must insist that UFOs first discovered America. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  131. As long as by rutledjw · · Score: 1

    they didn't make the same mistake with the natives and call them "Indians"...

    --

    Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
  132. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about the American Indians? I always found it interesting that Columbus was credited with discovering America even though there were already people living there. If we accept that homo sapiens originated in Mesopotamia then clearly someone discovered America long before Columbus (or even the Chinese) did.

    Hmmm...

  133. Nobody "discovered" America by min0r_threat · · Score: 1

    America wasn't "discovered", it was invented. The physical piece of land was discovered, but 'America' is definitely an invention.

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~ "I must create my own system, or be enslav'd by another man's." William Blake, Jerusalem.
  134. Just sit right back... by cnelzie · · Score: 1


    ..and you'll hear a tale...

    A tale of a mighty trip.

    That started from mainland China, aboard these giant ships, aboard these giant ships...

    The skipper was a brave and powerful Admiral...

    The mapper was a Venetian...

    They set off from a Chinese port upon 500 men manned ships, upon 500 men manned ships...

    The world was big giant unknown, they sailed to Australia...

    They visited the Americas and mapped the whole darn way, and mapped the whole darn way...

    Christopher Columbus, that dude named Magellan too...

    Let known in their logs and manuscripts...

    They used the Chinese maps, they used the Chinese maps...

    So, what does this all tell us lads?

    I say it shows the Chinese had, the best fleets before 1492, the best fleets before 1492...

    *Takes a bow...*

    --
    .sig seperator
    --

    --
    If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
  135. Wow. by txtger · · Score: 1

    I always wondered how George Washington was able to love Mall Chinese food as much as he did.

  136. Re:So? (correction) by dallen · · Score: 1

    Yah, I realized after I posted I shouldn't have said "accurate". A more careful reading of the articles didn't imply they were "accurate" maps. More so that it gave explorers a little bit to go on. :-)

    Also, the most recent time I tried visiting the Telegraph article, it asked me for username and password. When I tried again from lynx, with the direct article URL, it worked.

  137. and the first Chinese Buffet opened in 1435 by theBunkinator · · Score: 2, Funny

    in a small strip mall in NJ, as now became evident from leftover fortune cookies found at a nearby dry cleaner.

  138. and ... today the Chinese desire conquest by Erris · · Score: 3

    Propaganda like this is part of any empire's claim on the world. We found it, we own it, right? Oh yeah, the party invented the helocopter. There is a reason communist countries try to claim all ideas and discoveries. It is to legitimize their ownership of all things. Even if true exploratory rants should cause apprehension. I expect the Chinese government to pick this up and produce, "evidence" that they knew it all along.

    Who shall stop the Chinese if they do want to conquer? No one bothered as they crushed Tibet. China is one of the largest best armed countries in the world, and it's under horrific central control. Make no mistake few are willing to stand in their way.

    Thank you very much Stright Times for presenting this information as you did. I imagine your Royal Navy sources are not pleased. No thank you, for the offer of an active X advert.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    1. Re:and ... today the Chinese desire conquest by Gorgonzola · · Score: 1

      That is total rubbish. Tiny countries such as Denmark, Norway and The Netherlands each have a navy that can beat the Chinese Navy. Although the Chinese army is huge, it is nowhere the levels of sophistication of the European armies or even the Russian army. Armies that are all a generation behind the curve of the US army. Part of China's difficult relationship with the rest of the world is caused by a belief in its own superiority while at the same time being aware of its military insignificance compared to most of the developed world.

      --
      -- Spelling and grammar errors tend to be a sign of erroneous thinking.
    2. Re:and ... today the Chinese desire conquest by mankei · · Score: 1

      Yeah right. Everything related to China must be some secret propaganda campaign made up by the communists to conquer the world. Thanks for another mindless conspiracy shit. You will find the Chinese government nowadays more concerned about economy than anything else, and no one, at least in the government, would give a shit about this kind of stuff.

      Zheng He's naval journeys (1405-1433, 80+ years before Columbus) have long been documented. The traditional belief is that Africa was the farthest he had sailed, and he had around 60 ships and 90,000 people to travel with him each time. Given the size of his fleet and his past record if he did went a bit farther in another direction and reached Australia or America I would not be too surprised. If not I don't think the Chinese will be more bothered than you are.

  139. In Other News: by jtwilliams · · Score: 2, Funny


    When explorer Christopher Columbus landed in America in 1492, he was 72 years behind a Chinese expeditionary force, which had already made its way to the area.

    And although Captain James Cook was credited with discovering Australia for the British Empire in 1770, the Chinese had mapped the island continent 337 years earlier.

    Sailing in 1,000-foot-long ships with nine massive junk-style sails, the Chinese also circumnavigated the world a century before explorer Ferdinand Magellan's epic journey, and reached South America.


    Although it is widely believed that Neil Armstrong was the first man to set foot on the moon, it turns out that the Chinese had sailed to the moon 200 years earlier in a primitive capsule propelled by nothing more than junk-style solar sails.

  140. pshh! So what? by jbrelie · · Score: 1

    Vikings were here about 400 years before that!

  141. we already knew this by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

    Chinese came to alaska and spread, is this supposed to be new to us?

    We always knew this. I mean really who in their right mind would believe columbus discovered America, the native americans / chinese were the first, then a bunch of other groups came to America and either left or mixed with the chinese, creating the race now known as native american, mexican etc etc

    Anyhow we know this to begin with

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:we already knew this by thelizman · · Score: 1

      There's apparently alot that's new to you if you think the Chinese in any way contributed to early mesoamerican races. For starters, "China" and the "Chinese" did not exist when mongoloid (proper usage) nomads crossed the bearing striats. Moreover, "Mexico" and the "Mexicans" are a race borne of breeding between Spanish, Dutch, French, and native races. The thousands of years between effectively make the native american a different race from the mongoloid (again, proper usage) races which descended into china and south east asia. Following your logic, the Australian aboriginals ought to be a lot lighter in skin, right?

      In any event, no single person discovered America. Columbus never even set foot here, he merely gets credit for the european discovery of the new world (if we ignore Leif Ericsson). South Pacific Islanders demonstrated vast reach for thousands of years, and anthropological evidence supports that global sea trade existed long before any current civilization.

    2. Re:we already knew this by AdamD1 · · Score: 1

      and the "Chinese" did not exist when mongoloid (proper usage) nomads crossed the bearing striats.

      Actually: "mongoloid" means "resembling a mongol."

      Proper usage would actually be "Mongol" (capitalized.) Mongoloid is merely the physical resemblance.

      And it's "Bering Straits". Yeesh.

      $0.02

      --
      Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
    3. Re:we already knew this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mongolian (mng-gô'lç-n, -gôl'yn, mn-)
      adj.
      Of or relating to Mongolia, the Mongols, or their language or culture.
      also mongolian. Offensive. Of or relating to Down syndrome.
      n.
      A native or inhabitant of Mongolia.
      A member of the Mongol people.
      Anthropology. A member of the Mongoloid racial division. No longer in scientific use.

      perhaps you are mongolian after all

    4. Re:we already knew this by thelizman · · Score: 1
      Apparently, you have alot of time on your hands, since you're so handy in correcting everyone else. Unfortunately you're lacking in intelligence when it comes to correcting me on any other point than spelling (which is lame as shit to begin with).

      From the dictionary, we get the following:

      Mongoloid Pronunciation Key (mngg-loid, mn-)

      adj.
      1. Anthropology. Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as yellowish-brown skin pigmentation,
        straight black hair, dark eyes with pronounced epicanthic folds, and prominent cheekbones and including peoples indigenous to central and eastern Asia. Not in scientific use. See Usage Note at race1.
      2. Characteristic of or resembling a Mongol.
      3. also mongoloid Offensive. Of or relating to Down syndrome.


      n.
      1. Anthropology. A member of the Mongoloid racial classification. Not in scientific use.
      2. also mongoloid Offensive. A person affected with Down syndrome.


      Additionally, it is the "Bering Strait".

      Now, would you like change for your $0.02?
  142. Don't forget the Basques by hatless · · Score: 2

    There is also credible evidence that Basque whaling fleets were regularly working the waters off Newfoundland by the late 1300s. Though it didn't have much of a direct impact on North America, it would have to be considered one of the factors that allowed the Spanish to get to the Americas at all a century later, relying as they did on Basque sailors and navigators who, through this lens, would have already crossed the Atlantic.

    Whalers were not known for sharing information on where they fished. It was important and closely-guarded proprietary information.

  143. Yes however by HanzoSan · · Score: 1


    Theres a big diffrence between slaves of the same race, and slaves of diffrence races. When you are a slave of the same race, theres a chance that down the line if not you, your children or their children will be able to get out of it. It was part of the class system, Europe has slavery too, but with enough money, or with intelligence, there were ways to rise above it.

    Slave of diffrent races had 0 chance of ever getting out of slavery no matter what class because they werent considered human.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  144. Columbus wasn't the first by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Columbus wasn't the first to discover America, he was the last. The previous groups may have built a building or two, but soon abandoned it (due to nasty natives, and poor contacts with their homeland). The previous discovery's were quickly forgotten, but after Columbus's discovery, the ship building technology had reached a point that the journey was safe enough for regular contact to be maintained. Add to that the fact that the native population was being decimated by disease and thus weren't as much a problem as they were before. Nobody needed to discover it yet again.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  145. Is the news for nerds? by geekoid · · Score: 2

    No really.
    I'm pretty liberal about what gets posted here. I expect there to be posting about things that don't interest me, thats fine.
    I'm just don't see how this applies to "news for nerds".
    Just for the record, there are many thing I do enjoy that don't belong(IMO of course) on slashdot, and I would also say they don't belong here.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  146. Bullshit. by Robber+Baron · · Score: 2

    Sailing in 1,000-foot-long ships with nine massive junk-style sails, the Chinese also circumnavigated the world a century before explorer Ferdinand Magellan's epic journey, and reached South America.

    Bullshit. Having fished commercially for a number of years and seen first hand what sort of mischief the sea is capable of I can say that with conviction. The first major storm they encountered would have ripped them to pieces. A 1,000 foot long wooden ship would flex tremendously and start leaking like a sieve the minute it encountered ocean swells and a storm would finish the job.

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

  147. this is why... by Redgie · · Score: 1

    ...because these ships were theoretically sailing on the ocean and not a river or lake. Differential wave action in the ocean would tear a ship this long made out of such weak materials in half. Ocean wave action doesn't just go in one direction, it twists, lifts, pulls, etc. Even modern steel superstructures have difficulty with this when the ship is over a certain length. These ships may have existed on fresh water, but the ocean would destroy them.

    --

    Artificial intelligence or natural stupidity?
    Guess which wrote this...
  148. Taken from a Restaurant local sign.. by buzzsport · · Score: 1

    "We Delivery." Does this mean "We Discovery" too?

  149. And in a related story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    And in a related story, the ancestors of the people currently known by the misnomer "the Indians" (applied by Chrisopher Columbus, who didn't ever actually know where he had been), discovered the Americas approximately 15,000+ years ago, really making them not indigenous peoples, but merely the first discoverer's of the new world.

    The did this so long ago, everyone else forgot about it (since there was no internet or public archive at the time) and just assumed they'd /always/ been there.

    :-)

  150. Evidence? by Creepy · · Score: 1

    Out of curiousity, what evidence is there of Roman and Phoenicians reaching the Americas?

    I know many Egyptian mummies were found with cocaine in their bodies, which is native of South America. Also, one of the major port cities, Herculaeum (sp?) sunk into the sea after a great earthquake and probably took evidence with it.

    The phoenicians were great traders in the Mediteranian and surrounding areas, but I don't remember any cross atlantic evidence (hmm... maybe I need to watch Discovery channel more :)

    As for the Romans, I don't remember ever hearing anything about them going to the Americas. Most boats from the Roman Empire were coastal trading ships or war ships, neither of which are built for cross-oceanic voyages. I don't mean to discount them, I'm sure they could have built such ships, I just don't remember ever hearing anything about it. Maybe this is another artifact thing (like the Egyptian mummies with cocaine).

    1. Re:Evidence? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      How about Heyerdahl's Ra Expeditions?

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    2. Re:Evidence? by QuimKnuckle · · Score: 1
      I thought Herculaneum was covered by Mt Vesuvius along with Pompeii? It was Roman.

      Maybe you mean the Egyptian port of Alexandria? With the big lighthouse and library?

      Most of the evidence as I understand it comes from the ability of the Phoenicians and Egyptians to cross the Atlantic (based on ship construction). Maybe there is more evidence I am not aware of, buy Hyerdahl just proved it could be done, not that it was done.

      --
      Would you like a knuckle sandwich?
  151. More Info by Monty · · Score: 1

    If anyone remembers the "Millenium" series on CNN, they had a blurb about Zheng He and the junks he used in his travels.

    Here's a link: Millenium

    For more information, even more in depth, go to Time Magazine's special that ran a while back.

    The one thing to note about both of the links above is that they were created before Gavin Menzies' research. However, it was never known how far and exactly where Zheng He went because his ships and any documents of his travels were burned upon returning from his journey in light of the increasingly isolationist government. The only evidence of travel lies in records of his visit in certain places, and secondary evidence like Menzies' map theory.

    1. Re:More Info by Monty · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, and in case you have problems navigating the Millenium site, go to 15th century, and Multimedia Recap.

  152. I'm so sure they were on a vacation.. by thelizman · · Score: 1

    How do you know the Chinese didn't start raping, pillaging, and plundering? You think they launched a fleet of warships each loaded with a crew of 500 men armed with what....metal detectors and hula shirts - to find new treasures? The historical record (and this is nothing new folks, this anthropologist is just grabbing headlines) shows that the sailing fleets maintained by early dynasties were merchant marine fighting vessels. Commerce back then was done mostly at the tip of a sword. Ancient Tibetan history is filled with stories of Chinese Imperialism (ironically inspired by even earlier Tibetan imperialism - a rather alien concept nowadays).

    Dynasties aren't built on neighborlyness and good intentions, they're built on bloodbaths and plunder. Try being a realist instead of a leftist for a change.

  153. a word about discovery by geekoid · · Score: 2

    If I have a country that doesn't know china existed, and I build a boat and go looking for lands far away, then find China, I discovered it. It doesn't mean no one elso is there, or that it didn't exist before, it just means I found someplace I never new existed.
    Like being in a new neighbor hood and discovering the local 7/11.
    Or discovering Oxygen.
    Jeez people, get a grip.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  154. Nor were the Chinese first by scrytch · · Score: 2

    See, if there were people there, then those folks also discovered it. Walked there, if I remember my pre-history correctly...

    --
    I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
  155. What tragic tripe. Is true history lost? by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 2
    Moreover, they also peacefully inhabited the land

    Do you learn all your history from cartoons? The tribes of America warred on each other with incredible ferocity. The holisitc spiritual utopia of early America is a myth - these people engaged in strip farming, violent incursions, and even ritual torture. This isn't to defame them - many other cultures engaged in these acts as well, including Europeans, but no one is claiming that the Europeans were "children of the Earth" living at peace with the land and each other.

  156. Non-genocide my shiny metal ass! by GungaDan · · Score: 1
    And just what sort of disease would "Trail of Tears" be? Or "Wounded Knee?"

    Sure, alot of settlers wanted peaceful coexistence. But lots more wanted to fulfill their "manifest destiny."

    And don't forget that lots of people died of disease in concentration camps around the time of WWII. Shall we refrain from calling that a "genocide" as well?

    So how about instead of genocide, we settle for "wanton and intentional destruction of the vast majority of a race of people?" Seems honest to me.

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    1. Re:Non-genocide my shiny metal ass! by elefantstn · · Score: 3, Insightful
      And just what sort of disease would "Trail of Tears" be? Or "Wounded Knee?"


      All the intentional wartime/peacetime atrocities committed by Europeans in the Americas put together don't even add up to 1/100th the amount of Native Americans killed by foreign diseases. Not even close. It doesn't excuse them, but the Europeans were no more guilty of genocide than, say, the English in the Hundred Years' War.
      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    2. Re:Non-genocide my shiny metal ass! by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      Semantic point: the English were less guilty of genocide per-se, insofar as their goal was the political domination of France, not the complete supplanting of French culture with English culture and the removal of all things French from the landscape. It was a murderous campaign, but not per-se genocidal. Not all wanton acts of brutality are genocide - indeed, most are not.

  157. So what's wrong with newer settlers by anandsr · · Score: 1

    Well I shouldn't call it genocide, but it was
    effectively that, even more effective than what
    Hitler attempted. Its a historical fact that most
    of the native people from the Americas were lost
    and the new one's somehow have the idea that they
    have lived there forever. To the extent that they
    see new settlers, as leeches, totally missing the
    irony of the situation ;-).

  158. Chinese or Mongolians...? by TimeHorse · · Score: 1

    Well, here's my take, this may have happened and I won't refute it, but I would like to point out one thing: We are talking the Mongol Dynasty of Chinese rule here, and by that virtue would it not be more appropriate to give credit where credit is due: The Mongolians discovered America! Who knew!?

    In context, the Mongols were expansionists and certainly welcomed Venetian Marco Polo to study among their empire, but when the Mongols fell to the Han Race Ming Emperors, China entered into a period of isolationism. The Great Wall was rebuilt to keep others out as well as the Chinese people in. Had the Ming been more like the Tang or Mongol dynasties, we might all be speaking Zhong gui right now. :)

    Devo Andare,

    Jeffrey.

    --
    Time Lord, Dark Horse: The Techno Mage of Gallifrey
  159. I think you missed the point by brokeninside · · Score: 1
    Gavin Menzies' work allegedly demonstrates that Christopher Columbus had a map based on the work of Venetian cartiographer Nicolo da Conti who sailed with Emperor Zhui Di's navy during its circumnavigation of the globe.

    Certainly, as you state "If I have a country that doesn't know china existed, and I build a boat and go looking for lands far away, then find China, I discovered it. It doesn't mean no one elso is there, or that it didn't exist before, it just means I found someplace I never new existed." However, if you do know that China exists because you have a map from those who have gone before and you follow the map to China, you didn't discover it.

    Regards,

    -l

  160. The Magic Formula... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the "center of the world" as you call it, being Christian is the only thing that mattered. Nothing was acknowledged to non-Christians. Such as when the Vikings landed on North American soil. (Leif Erikson?) They were European, but not Christian.

  161. Of course the Chinese discovered America... by GutterBunny · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...What else would explain the 700 year old chow mein in my refrigerator?

    --
    managers...why god invented purgatory
    1. Re:Of course the Chinese discovered America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be quite a discovery indeed, considering Chow mein wasn't invented until this century at the eariliest.

      We all know chow mein are just bad noodle with left over meat and veggie, fried together and sold to hungry americans :) No self-respectable Chinese will eat that sh*t.

  162. Re:Non-belligerent Indians? by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 2

    Given that there were *any* battles over land implies that the land was stolen, since it clearly did not first belong to the Europeans who ended up owning it.

    *shrug* Not like it wouldn't have happened the other way round. Here is a timeline of the Winnebagos, for example; check out the long and bloody litany of Indian wars which didn't involve Europeans at all.

    Sure, it's not politically correct to point out that that American Indians had huge and bloody land wars amongst themselves, or that Indian tribes held enormous numbers of slaves before the Civil War, etc., but that doesn't make it any less true.

    History's just one thing after another. The Europeans' ancestors got kicked around by the Mongols, or the Arsacids, or the Magyars. The present Indians' ancestors got kicked around by the Welsh, or the Spanish, or the Swedes. C'est la vie.

    --
    All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
  163. Kennewick Man by jmichaelg · · Score: 2

    the Vikings never made it past "new found land."

    Perhaps. But there was a Nova segment on Kennewick Man who looks very much like an European. His skull is believed to be around 9000 years old and was found in Oregon.

    1. Re:Kennewick Man by QuimKnuckle · · Score: 1
      Yeah too bad we can't study that dude some more.

      From the website: "Many of these characteristics are definitive of modern-day caucasoid peoples, while others, such as the orbits are typical of neither race. Dental characteristics fit Turner's (1983) Sundadont pattern, indicating possible relationship to south Asian peoples."

      --
      Would you like a knuckle sandwich?
  164. Columbus' map used to make Piri Reis map by anvilmark · · Score: 1

    They seem to ignore the existence of the Piri Reis map that (stories suggest) was based in part on a map that Columbus' navigator used.

    Check it out here

    Don't simply dismiss it just because there are 'x-files' type sites that talk about it. It's quite fascinating.

  165. Re:Non-belligerent Indians? by ichimunki · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't think a critique of US' aggression against foreign nations implies forgiveness for the aggression those nations may have been engaged in themselves. It certainly doesn't imply approval for slavery (which doesn't even begin to address the issue that there are many forms of slavery, all of them inappropriate, but which vary in degree). The fact that history is filled with stories of invasion, genocide, war, and plunder is not a good reason to pardon one or more groups for their aggressions, nor to endorse similar aggression in the future.

    I'm not trying to be politically correct. I'm trying to be accurate in response to an overly euphemistic description of history. If I am not accurate, please correct me. And you have a point that in order to be fully accurate we might put these conflicts into a larger context. That the land was stolen does not necessarily mean that it should be returned-- as you point out, they may well have stolen it from others. That an injustice was committed does not necessarily obligate descendents of the original malefactors to produce some sort of recompense. And when it comes down to it, this is land we're talking about. It's pretty hard, imho, to "own" something that predates you by millions of years and which upon your death, you will become part of.

    --
    I do not have a signature
  166. Take a look at this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is taken from the Icelandic SAGA
    http://www.dalir.is/leif/discovery.html

  167. Unlikely, my rosy red behind! by rab · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Actualy, it's pretty unlikely that the indians ever had a population close to that of europe. Almost all of america was vast, untouched wilderness before the europeans came. Europe, in contrast was almost all farmland, and the hands of humans are evident everywhere.

    Ever wonder why the names of so many New England towns end in the word "field"? Most of what is now New England (and anywhere else on the continent with good dirt and a decent growth season) was cleared fields long before European settlers showed up. Further, most recent estimates (recent, because previous estimates have been uniformly politically self-serving, but based on the same historical observations) show that aboriginal populations in North America rival europe's population at the time of westward expansion.

    The density of population from one place to another was much more consistent than in Europe, so there were no streets being used as open sewers , no Bubonic plague, no resistance to the diseases that appear among densely populated cities.

    What you learned in High School about native populations is simply wrong. When the plagues started depopulating native villages (mortality rates were about 95%), the settlers thought that all of this wealth sitting and waiting for them to come along was the will of God and in their prayers thanked God for their good fortune.

    To get back to the current topic. Just about everyone has been to the Americas before Columbus. The obsession with his successful trips to enslave a few natives and steal a lot of gold shouldn't be interesting to anyone actually interested in history.

    Don't get me wrong. The natives made plenty of mistakes. The Mayans were likely wiped out by an ecological disaster of their own making. Other native tribes made their own mistakes. They were human, but several of my ancestors uniformly and repeatedly screwed them over by breaking treaties and contracts time and time again. Pretending it didn't happen or even outright denying it doesn't change the facts.

    Here's another one for you. The sale of Manhattan for a few beads? Two problems: First, the deal was made with a tribe that had no claim to Manhattan at the time (though they said they did) . Second, the treaty as signed was for one season's hunting rights (the natives were very savvy with land contracts and land rights). At the end of the contract, we had to vacate, but we pulled out our guns, enslaved the natives, and shipped them back to Europe (the slave trade went both ways across the Atlantic).

    Regards, Ross

    1. Re:Unlikely, my rosy red behind! by NateE · · Score: 1

      Excellent post Rab. Somebody mod this guy up.

      I've since read material that has convinced me that the High School history books they gave us were crud. Truth, is too complex for growing minds! Contrary facts to accepted myth, MUST BE ELIMINATED!! Quote those incorrect dates. Better yet memorize them for the test...

      Oh that was time well spent, hopefully things have changed.

  168. BS - Everybody knows the Vikings were here first by iie1195 · · Score: 1

    ... after the Natives, obvioudly.
    North America therefore belongs to us, the mighty vikings.

    -iie1195

  169. sure by alec314159 · · Score: 0

    Those Chinese are commonly referred to as Indians.

  170. Let's be accurate! by olafva · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone who has had the opportunity to examine the actual artifacts first-hand in the travelling Smithsonian exhibit (now in LA):
    http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/
    will have no doubt that the Vikings came to America and settled on the northern tip of Newfoundland nearly 500 years in advance of any Chinese or Italian seafarers. Of course no one can claim to have "discovered" America as it was already inhabited by what the Vikings referred to as skrallings, who killed some of the Vikings and is the likely reason that they retreated to Greenland after a year or so of living in L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland. For more see:
    http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/parks/newfoundl and/an se_meadows/english/history_e.htm

    --
    What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
  171. That doesn't change anything ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Chinese, I would like to say that it's a "SHAME" that we discovered the America -- basically, nothing had happened after we "discovered" the new land. Oh, yeah, we closed the port and officially ended the Golden Age of China. Thanks, Zheng He, you are a hero, but your boss is an idiot.

  172. Who said river? by SteamedGeek · · Score: 1

    Chinese junks of the period sailed in the Sea of Japan and all along the coast of China, as well as in the very violent South China Sea. They have typhoons there that would make the Atlantic blows look like mere windstorms. Also, unlike the Oak type woods used in Euro and later US ships, they used Teak... this is, when cured correctly, the hardest and toughest of woods, and also the most tensile strength of all wood materials used commonly (iron wood is actually 'tougher' so I have read, but it is not available in the abundance Teak wood is found in Asia). I see your point about engineering a ship that large that would still be able to weather a moderate storm in the Pacific, but wood engineering is a bit different than steel engineering. Different processes, tools, methods, etc. Remember that US nuclear powered carriers and some of the latest super tankers exceed this length now, and modern engineering and metulurgy both support the building of 'super' ships or 'city' ships for the future (there even is a project for one based out of Florida that might just get the start up money needed for a 2200 foot ship). I really would be curious to see the material evidence that support the idea that the chinese had a 1000 foot ship. Remember, people didn't think you could build a wood submarine that could actually submerse and run, but it was done in for the first time in the 1700's. Man has managed to engineer a process that allowed him to build the pyramids out of 200 ton stone blocks in just 30 years, even though today the largest crane would find it difficult to do so in 60-100 years.

    --
    Life Sucks... Have a Beer and a Smoke then Smile Damnit!!!
  173. Africans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read "They Came Before Columbus" - Africans were here way before columbus

  174. its true by abolith · · Score: 1

    because proof has been found years ago in form of Chinese balast stones. these chinese stones were the only know balast stones shaped in the form of a circle with a hole in it. I wish i could find an article on it but I saw it on the Discovery channel like 6 years ago. But then then Eric the red landed in north america first many many years before the chinese did.

    --
    if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
  175. Re: eyes roll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think you mean the Hebrews not the Jews, and it never happened anyway. There is not a single mention of a large Hebrew slave population at any time in any of the ancient Egyptian documents we have unearthed. The only historical record of it is in the Bible, and we all know how reliable that is *eyes roll*

    Strangely enough, people said the same thing about Assyria. (until Ninevah was discovered in 1920)

  176. "Unintentionally bringing disease"? by anactofgod · · Score: 2, Informative

    I guess you missed the day in history class when you were supposed to learn about how the US Army distributed blankets known to be laced with smallpox to tribes of Indians that were being forceably relocated to reservations in the 1800s. This practice actually appears to have began in the mid 1700s. Small pox was even used as a weapon during the Revolutionary War against opponents who hadn't been innoculated against small pox (ie, the Native Americans). BTW

    What? That wasn't in your high school history books? How could that be???

    That, my friend, is a textbook example of genocide by European settlers upon the native populations. And a textbook example of how history is written by the victors.

    ...anactofgod...

    --

    ---anactofgod---

    "Equal opportunity swindling - *that* is the true test of a sustainable democracy."
    1. Re:"Unintentionally bringing disease"? by prizzznecious · · Score: 1

      Who cares? They would have done it to us if they had been less interested in fighting each other and had developed the technology to get to Europe first.

      --

      visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
    2. Re:"Unintentionally bringing disease"? by Braves+Fan · · Score: 1

      The links you listed gave no details of the US Army distributing smallpox-infected blankets. One link does mention Revolutionary soldiers using the tactic--though it does not say the opponents were native Americans. I doubt the British, Hessians and Tories were necessarily innoculated.

      Yes, Lord Amherst did give smallpox infected blankets out (before the USA was founded). He gave them to hostile forces during a war. There's a difference between biological warfare and genocide.

      --
      Dale Stephenson
  177. "Discover" by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the native american people (north, central and south), America was not discovered.

    America is a continent.
    Americans are people who live in America
    "Americans" is an abbreviation for United State citizens.
    We americans means we people from the US, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, and so on.

    Any comments?

    1. Re:"Discover" by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Canadian, I NEVER assumed somebody was talking about ME when they said "Americans". North Americans, yes, but Americans, no.

  178. Viking Settlement (Officiated by United Nations) by olafva · · Score: 1

    Viking Link

    Sorry, somehow the above link didn't cut and paste correctly.
    Try to see the Smithsonian exhibit when it's near you. Firsts are often disputed, but I think if you do enough research, you'll find:
    First electronic computer (Atanasoff) despite ENIAC
    First Laser (Gould) despite Townes Nobel Prize
    First Settlement in America (Vikings) despite Columbus, Chinese. However the "skrallings" were already established in North America

    --
    What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
  179. Re:They Lost a War (It's more like a genocide) by ywl · · Score: 1

    Not trying to be a flamebait.

    Yes. I agree that there were wars and one side(s) lost. But the so-call wars are more like conquest with one technologically superior side slaughtering numerous small, divided tribes. Mexican empire, unlike the native, was a conqueror and they were perceived to have some ability to defend themselves.

    This is a normal thing in history. But the thing you accused as PC is nothing more than judging that period of history from a modern moral perspective. That's nothing contradict about that.

    We believe that slavery was wrong. By following your logic, can we also claim that it's just the measure to "recruit" low-cost, high-quality labor - a normal tendency of a capitalistic economy?

  180. Vikings in North America by knuth · · Score: 2

    marjine says,

    the Vikings never made it past "new found land"

    Depends who you ask. Some people believe that the "Vikings" (actually, a fourteenth-century band of Goths and Norwegians) made it as far inland as west central Minnesota.

    Look up the Kensington Runestone. This is controversial, however; some people think it is a hoax.

  181. Aboriginal Australians discovered 'America' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think there were a great many more people who discoverd the 'Americas' before the Vikings, Chinese, and Europeans.

    Old world origins of first Americans revealed in analysis of skulls
    Early Brazilians Unveil African Look
    First Arrivals

  182. now I hope someone has a good link here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    because besides the Vikings and the migrating Asians (Indians/Native Americans), I vaguely remember talk in the academic realm of there being proof that the Native Americans either displaced or replaced another population that apparently did not seem to have migrated over the Bering Strait.

    This is fascinating stuff, so if anyone has a realistic time line, noting theory and proven fact along with facts that have yet to have any credible theory asigned to them, it would be greatly appreciated!

    Thanks

  183. on a side note.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if a survey could be taken of all humanity (reliably that is) that would show us what percentage of people seek / use such information for emotional B.S. reasons. (e.g. "Yeah, Africans/Asians/Europeans where first, and I be one of them so that means I am better and am OWED something now!")

  184. interesting logic: here's why it is wrong by ondelette · · Score: 1

    So, I create a very power viral agent and I dissiminate it all through the USA killing all of the population. I then come in an own all of the USA.

    It is fair, I won a war land. Period.

    Far fetched? Well, the overwhelming majority of native Americans were killed by diseases and hungere brought by the Europeans. Native Americans were not killed by bullets one by one.

    That is no war my friend.

    I could go on and on, but it wasn't a war land, I can assure you. There were some land wars, but a lot of conflicts in North America were just genocides (true for almost all of the natives, for the Acadians as well and so on).

    1. Re:interesting logic: here's why it is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bloody hell. Of course there's a mixture of war, underhandedness, and politics. That's life now and still in many parts of the world. It happens in US politics with one side berating the other and vice vera.

      The Indians knew the Europeas did not hold to their agreements. Were innocent and ignorant of many of the weapons, biological, addiction inducing and dehibilitating, and not, Europeans used. They got pushed out. Brutally, yes. But no different than what occurs in Africa. And the process is of little difference to the stupid liberal versus conservative fighting seen in the US and the like, with the exception that there is SOMETHING ELSE TO LIVE FOR.

      Attempts at genocide still occur daily. Blacks kill whites. Whites kill blacks. Muslim. Jew. There are people that want to WIPE OUT the other. Get off your arse and recognize this. The majority of people today, if encountering a huge land, with gold and riches, with no police force or oversight or retribution, which would rape that land and kill the inhabitants that got in the way. The reason they would pause is because of the psychological impulse that, growing up in a rich society, states that it is wrong. But they'd get over that soon when they taste the power. Sick, yes, but we are not that far developed from 200 years ago.

  185. All Your States Are Belong to Us! by Nightspore · · Score: 1

    Your Base too! Plus Okinawa!

    - Chen

  186. and the iteration to come by zap42hod · · Score: 0


    This suggests a natural solution to the current overpopulation of China :)

  187. USA weren't founded on greed, more like freedom! by ondelette · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Chances are that greed lead the Chinese to stop their exploration. They just didn't see any profit in North America and exploration in general.

    And maybe there wasn't much profit in it btw.

    The difference in Europe was that people were litterally dying to leave. We can presume that things weren't so bad in China or that people weren't offered the choice to leave.

    I doubt the USA were founded on greed btw. Freedom would be more like it. Yes, freedom to prosper! But freedom of religion, freedom all around.

    Either the Chinese didn't care much for more freedom, or they had so little of it that they couldn't leave.

    Let's think of the Internet. Who's on the it? A lot of people who had no room in the tradionnal setting. People trying to escape the so-called real world. Then, other people came, they tried to tame the Internet, unsuccesfully.

    Do you get a web-life (setting up a web-page, reading news on the web and so on) because of greed? No, because of the freedom it gives you. Freedom to explore, to learn, and so on. Yes, you may end up making business on the web, and maybe even making a lot of money, but in a lot of cases, it wasn't you first goal.

    Europeans, at least some of them, had a thirst for freedom.

    You could say that if you want to foster exploration, the best thing you can do is make people's life miserable, while leaving them a means of escape.

    Hey! Life is good in the USA and that explains why most Americans can't draw an accurate map of the world or learn another language! You'd be a lot more of an explorer if you were born in some poor African country with a visa and some money to leave.

  188. Who is Gavin Menzies? by hether · · Score: 2

    I tried to look for more information about Gavin Menzies, to find out what his background is and previous work he may have done. I suppose amateur historians are just as credible, but I wanted to know if he was well established and would be well receieved. I came up with relatively nothing about him or his previous work. I did however find a ton of information on Gavin Menzies, guitar tech for the stars. : )

    I also came across another couple places carrying this same story with slightly different angles.

    http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200203/07/eng200 20307_91604.shtml
    and
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2F news%2F2002%2F03%2F04%2Fnexp04.xml

    --

    Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
  189. Re:Viking Settlement (Officiated by United Nations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually if I remembered correctly Atanasoff's device never worked.

  190. Haplogroup X by Baldrson · · Score: 1
    Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on March 4, 2002 published a story titled Wisconsin Dig Points To Europe As Origin Of First Americans saying:

    The first of the Europe-to-North America treks probably took place at the height of the last Ice Age more than 18,000 years ago, said Dennis Stanford, curator of archaeology at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, and Milwaukee native Bruce Bradley, an independent archaeological consultant and research associate of the Carnegie Museum.
    ...
    Stanford and Bradley also point to recent DNA analysis involving a particular genetic marker known as haplogroup X. The marker is found in a minority of American Indians, including some in the Great Lakes region, and Europeans, but is not found in Asians, suggesting an ancestral link between Europe and North America.

  191. Re:Baseball Revisionism by ashitaka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Baseball is a derivative of an older British game - Rounders.

    History
    Rounders is, almost unquestionably, baseball's immediate ancestor. Primarily a boys' sport in England, it was mentioned, along with baseball, in a 1744 publication, A Little Pretty Pocket-Book, and the sport was explained in detail in the second edition of The Boy's Own Book, published in 1828.
    It's quite likely that both rounders and cricket evolved from stoolball, though there's no direct evidence that they did.

    Henry Chadwick, a native of England who became the first newspaper writer to cover baseball, wrote a historical piece for Spalding's Baseball Guide in 1903, in which he asserted that baseball had derive from rounders. The assertion angered his publisher, A. G. Spalding, who insisted that baseball must be a thoroughly American sport.

    Spalding called for a commission to investigate the origins of "the great American pastime," and it was this commission that decided in 1907 that Abner Doubleday had invented the sport. So Chadwick's undoubtedly true statement ironically led to the creation of a total myth.

    Incidentally, Spalding should have known better. He was among a group of baseball players who visited England in 1874, when English spectators and sportswriters all recognized the "American" sport as a variation on rounders. And in 1889 Spalding was on an American team that played a game against a champion English rounders team in Liverpool.

    The Scottish Rounders Association was founded in 1889 and a National Rounders Association was established in England in 1943. However, rounders remains primarily a sport for schoolboys.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  192. The Chinese movtive -was- greed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were looking for foreign nations to force them to give tribute.

    Much like the modern PLA terrorist organization trying to conquer all of the island chains on the Pacific Rim.

  193. Then open up immigration to all! by ondelette · · Score: 1

    "no person should be rewarded for what was complete chance"

    Then let's go! Open up the border already and let's everybody come in and enjoy our privileges!

    Surely, it is only by chance that you are Canadian... why couldn't everyone be Canadian and get Canadian welfare?

    Pleeeeeassse!

    1. Re:Then open up immigration to all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If most Canadians think like you do,
      then I hope they put a wall up with
      Canada AND Mexico!!!!!!!

  194. "..out way.."? by ashitaka · · Score: 1

    "out way"??!! You actually used "out way"??

    Just when you think Slashdot can't get any more illiterate along comes an even worse example.

    Outweigh

    \Out*weigh"\, v. t. To exceed in weight or value.
    Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  195. Some facts on what happened to native Americans by Sara+Chan · · Score: 2
    And 80% of the Native American mortality wasn't due to slavery, or genocide, or the use of biological weapons. It was due to the fact that Native Americans had no resistance to common, resistable diseases among Europeans, like the flu. By the time Lewis and Clark reached the Willamette Valley - the first white guys to see alot of America - almost 90% of the valley population had been killed by diseases spread from Native American population to Native American population across the continent. Not smallpox, which never reached the Willamette valley, but primarily the flu.
    The actual population decrease was more like 95%: there were over 5 million native people in 1500 and only 0.25 million by 1900. And much of this was due to deliberate genocide. See here for some good analysis.

    If you include Mexico and South/Central America, this becomes much more horrid. Roughly 75 million native people were killed. Although diseases were one of the primary causes, they were often deliberately introduced by Europeans, essentially a primitive--but effective--form of biological warfare.

    As for historical comparisons (you mention Assyria), this was a successful genocidal holocaust on a scale that appears to be unique.

    1. Re:Some facts on what happened to native Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realise a lot of whats on that site you mention is suspect, don't you? There is a lot of evidence that Spaniards (especially the Jesuits) took great pains to isolate Amerinidans to escape disease. The problem is that a communicable disease is communicable. Once the diease was introduced in the immunologically naive population of the Americas there wasn't a damn thing anyone could have done. Scattered incidents of deliberate intoroduction would not have, in anyway, had any impact on the final result. Vast populations of Amerindians were wiped out long before any direct contact with Europeans as the disease spread through local populations.

      So you can talk about how bad the Europeans were but it doesn't matter. It was inevitable. There was no way to avoid it. None. This doesn't excuse the actions of the colonizers nor does it attempt to justify what they did. However, you should try to pretend that any other result was possible after Cortez landed.

      Of course, some say the Amerindians got their revenge by intorducing Europe to syphillis... However, this is unlikely as the spirochete is indistinguishable from the one that causes yaws - which had been endemic in africa for millenia.

    2. Re:Some facts on what happened to native Americans by maxpublic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What a crock. Disease was introduced *accidentally* in the early 1500's and pretty much wiped out most Native Americans by the beginning of the 1600's. Using polio-infected blankets against certain tribes didn't take place until the 1800's. By this time the flu had already done it's work.

      There were no concentration camps, no ovens, no Gestapo. The number of people actually killed - as in, murdered - by Europeans can be measured in the tens of thousands. This isn't insignificant but it's by no means unique in history. As I said before the Assyrians did much, much worse and with more brutality than even the Spaniards were capable of. Hell, the Incans and the Aztecs *both* committed atrocities far beyond anything than Cortez and company envisioned, and these boys were complete lunatics.

      This pathetic attempt at revisionist history isn't appreciated.

      And please note: accepting historical fact by no means exempts people from moral action *today*. Passing laws to protect Native Americans and provide them with equal opportunity are a sign of ethical behavior; indulging in blame-fests is a way of avoiding concrete action which might affect one's pocketbook. Blaming ourselves for what thousands of peoples have done during the entirety of human history is a great way to 'accept responsility' without having to take corrective action to make the lives of Native Americans *alive now, today* more equitable - especially when self-blame is free and money is not.

      I do not hold myself responsible for what my ancestors did to Native Americans, intentionally or unintentionally. Life isn't fair, and such is the lot of the conquered. I do, however, blame myself if I don't act to improve the lives of Native Americans in our nation today. So lets stop whining and start doing something constructive, eh?

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    3. Re:Some facts on what happened to native Americans by Sara+Chan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Disease was introduced *accidentally* in the early 1500's and pretty much wiped out most Native Americans by the beginning of the 1600's.
      I wasn't aware that most were wiped out that early. If it's true, do you have a reference?
      There were no concentration camps, no ovens, no Gestapo. The number of people actually killed - as in, murdered - by Europeans can be measured in the tens of thousands.
      This is false. Consider even just the 1800s. Forced population dislocations led to a lot more deaths than you indicate. Once the gold rush started, there was much more killing. The bison population was reduced from 10 million to under 10 thousand--largely as a deliberate attempt to deprive native populations of their livelihood, again leading to a large death toll.

      And yes the Spanish had death camps (though the number who died in them is probably small compared to the number who died from smallpox).

      And please note: accepting historical fact by no means exempts people from moral action *today*. Passing laws to protect Native Americans and provide them with equal opportunity are a sign of ethical behavior; indulging in blame-fests is a way of avoiding concrete action which might affect one's pocketbook. Blaming ourselves for what thousands of peoples have done during the entirety of human history is a great way to 'accept responsility' without having to take corrective action to make the lives of Native Americans *alive now, today* more equitable - especially when self-blame is free and money is not.

      I do not hold myself responsible for what my ancestors did to Native Americans, intentionally or unintentionally. Life isn't fair, and such is the lot of the conquered. I do, however, blame myself if I don't act to improve the lives of Native Americans in our nation today. So lets stop whining and start doing something constructive, eh?

      We agree on this one. (And how did you know I was Canadian, eh?)
  196. Re:My experiences in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    racist

  197. Re:*Everybody* discovered America befoer Columbus. by markmoss · · Score: 1

    The Vikings did tell everyone, but they were speaking Norse so no one understood them. Not to mention that they killed most of the people they met...

    8-)

  198. People always forget the African explorers... by Onetzu · · Score: 1

    Were trading with South America long before the Chinese or the Vikings!

    http://abcnews.go.com/ABC2000/abc2000science/new wo rld991019.html

    http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/csj/960216 /m cmen.html

    --
    "Who are you" "I'm not sure, but i'm not who I was when I started being me"
  199. No, no, no, you've got it all wrong... by RedBear · · Score: 0, Troll

    I hope this means the Chinese *are* going to claim us as a renegade state, so we have an excuse to kick their little chinky-eyed commie asses. Woohoo!

    Semper Fi!

  200. The Chinese Didn't Discover America by guttentag · · Score: 2
    It was actually a Native American telemarketer routing his spam through unprotected Chinese mail servers. The Chinese never knew what hit them.

    From: hotsex@bigtent.org
    Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1420 02:38:12 +0800
    To: qappyyfcsybuzzcb@yahoo.com
    Subject: re: order
    Received: from baoshan.sh.cn ([203.95.4.10]) by yahoo.com

  201. bastardisation of European Culture? by GCP · · Score: 2

    You mean like throwing out European monarchies in favor of democracy?

    You mean like throwing out horrific European religious wars in favor of freedom of religion?

    You mean like refusing to adopt European fascism that Europeans took to so readily, leaving millions dead and 20th century Europe in flames?

    You mean like refusing to adopt European communism, that created such bloodshed, repression, and the infamous "Iron Curtain" across Europe?

    We certainly have problems in America, but bastardization of European Culture isn't one of them.

    --
    "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
    1. Re:bastardisation of European Culture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tee-hee...."European Culture". Now there's an oxymoron. =)

    2. Re:bastardisation of European Culture? by fruey · · Score: 1

      Don't get me into a war about Europe (several governments) and America (one government) and past history and all that. I made my remark as a flippant aside and that's it. In all, I am pretty disappointed with the current American government and certainly the moves towards world economic domination.

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
  202. Already happening by nytes · · Score: 1

    Excerpt from LA Times article about the "Arlington Springs Woman" (I can't find the original online, but I remember reading it a couple of years ago):

    The new discovery is likely to be controversial in part because many
    scientists say
    that the old skeletons found in the past few years around the Western
    United States do
    not resemble modern Native Americans. Detailed examinations of the skulls
    reveal
    slender faces, narrower brain cavities, high foreheads and slightly
    protruding chins
    that are more typical of Caucasoid peoples.

    Some of them bear striking resemblance to a very ancient race called the
    Ainu, a
    maritime people who were forerunners of Polynesians and long ago occupied Japan
    and China, Owsley said.

    In contrast, Native American people and their ancestors have features common to
    Eskimos and people of northern Asia, including round, flatter faces and
    pronounced
    cheekbones, Owsley said.

    Many Native American groups strongly object to the theory that others got here
    first. In some cases, including one major one in the Northwest, tribes have
    successfully invoked the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and
    Repatriation
    Act to force researchers to return old skeletons for reburial before they
    can be tested.
    Paul Varela, executive director of the Chumash Interpretive Center in Thousand
    Oaks, said oral traditions passed down through generations of Central Coast
    Indians
    confirm that they were the first inhabitants of California.

    "If you ask a Chumash person, they will tell you they have been here forever.
    We've always been here," Varela said.

    In part to resolve such questions, UC Davis anthropologist David Glenn Smith
    said he hopes to begin DNA testing by summer on bones from 18 very old North
    American skeletons, including the Arlington Springs woman. The testing would go
    far in determining the ancestry and closest living relatives of America's first
    inhabitants.

    --
    -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  203. Let's Do Away With North American Borders by aoeuid · · Score: 1

    While I understand that in practice we could never do this, at least any time soon, deep down in my heart I really wish we could.

    While I was in Mexico this winter, one thing I kept thinking to myself over and over was how it just isn't fair that they can't go to the United States. They just can't cross the 20 foot river. It was so sad to me, because they were all so nice and I really wished they could enjoy the privileges we enjoy to the North. On the other hand, I didn't meet a single one who actually wanted to come here to live, but I still felt sad none the less.

    I was born in London, Ontario, and still live here. Though I understand it, it's almost as though deep down in my heart I just don't want to accept that I simply can not drive 45 minutes to Port Huron, Michigan, and decide to live or work there. I just can't, and it's something that doesn't seem right to me. I wish we could come up with a way to do away with North American borders, for citizens of our three countries. Keep our countries sovereign, with their own laws (we don't need your DMCA here, thank you very much), but let the people choose where to live and work. Because I really wish I could stand by my statement that "no person should be rewarded for what was complete chance". (By the way, I'd be in Mexico before Port Huron, I don't simply want to steal your precious high-paying American jobs from you).

    1. Re:Let's Do Away With North American Borders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God, my god, is what are you using for a brain? Swiss cheese?

    2. Re:Let's Do Away With North American Borders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      care to explain yourself?

    3. Re:Let's Do Away With North American Borders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are strong arguments, both moral and economic, for opening up US borders to unbridled immigration. You think anyone who doesn't hold your bigoted opinion is an idiot? At least support your insult with some plausible rhetoric.

    4. Re:Let's Do Away With North American Borders by letxa2000 · · Score: 2
      While I was in Mexico this winter, one thing I kept thinking to myself over and over was how it just isn't fair that they can't go to the United States.

      I am an American who has lived in Mexico for over 6 years.

      Immigration is a bummer, both ways. Every year I have to renew my permit to stay and live in Mexico. Of course, it's just paperwork--they're not going to tell me "no."

      I, too, would like open borders between Canada, U.S., and Mexico. I believe the U.S./Canada border should be open immediately. U.S. citizens should be able to work in Canada and vice versa.

      The Mexican border can be opened once the standard of living increases. To do so before that happens would cause a massive and fast fall in the stnadard of living in the United States and Canada. But once Mexican income were to reach, say, 80% of the average income in the U.S./Canada, do it.

  204. *One* scholar estimated... by GCP · · Score: 2

    It's funny how the article would say "one scholar estimated," and your quote inflates that to "some scholars estimate". I'm not blaming you. The way the Atlantic article is written, it sort of naturally leads to the feeling that the scholarly world in general is changing to this new way of thinking. If you look closely at their actual words, though, the feeling the article projects and the actual words listed are not at all the same.

    This is how myths are created. Pick some statistical deviant, and present his views as the world of science entering a new understanding and throwing out old myths.

    --
    "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
  205. what about the others..? by scheidl.g · · Score: 1

    American history is something really incredible. It is in the rest of the world well known that not Chris discovered america, it has been the vikings with several colonies in USA and Canada. More incredible there are the evidences of the Michigan tables (recently exhibited in vienna) which indicate that VERY early indian and near-east folks have built colonies at the east coast. This tables have been declared a forgery by the Smithonian institute already a 100 years ago because there have been traces of a saw at the edges of the tables (oh well, an ancient saw has been discovered short after that, made with an forgotten copper-hardening process but I do not want to go into details to much). This tables show romans, greeks, hebrews and other of the early people, pictures of wars with the native americans and scenes from the bible on about 50.000(!) tables already found.

    The outside-of-America-historians note that there is "an-American-wall" that shields American history from influences that deny the founder of America. Some even call it the "American wall of ignorance". It would also mean that in the past, the founders of America committed genocide on yews long before the Germans did - some of the folks that settled at the east coast have become natives. If I remember right the Chipaware indians are one of them.
    As this events already took place around AD200 (the scripture on the table is related to coptic but not precisely identified) I really do not care much about the chinese. There are a lot of evidences about a far earlier world-trade system too: Traces of Cocaine in egypt mummies, Pinapples on paintings in Pompeij and so on.

    Please Dont ask me why "Modern Science" ignored that facts for soooo long. I suppose they all rely on their research budget, that wont grow much with information like that.

    regards
    Gerald Scheidl

  206. What the point of this really is.. by happyvalley · · Score: 1

    What is really important about this, is not that Cheng he was able to make contact with the Americas. But that such an advanced exploration effort should come to naught. Cheng He's fleets far surpassed anything the west ever accomplished for centuries. Yet only a generation later, there was nothing left, Those ships were dismantled like our last few Saturn 5's. How is it the west won the race to World Hegemony when the Chinese were obvously so far ahead at that point in time. Are we making the same mistakes the chinese of that era did when they shut the project down?

  207. Interesting ... by SimonK · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But I'm a bit suspicious of the claim that a Cherokee chief said Madoc's people were called "welsh". Welsh is an old English word meaning "strangers" or "enemies". Welsh people (as I guess you know) would have called themselves "cymraeg", or even "British" (Prythaeg ?).

  208. The more important question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is when will America discover the rest of the world?

  209. Native Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...discovered America before anyone else.

  210. Re:Non-belligerent Indians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lovely justification there, by that thought I should be able to go out and start shooting blacks and latinos in impoverished areas because, afterall, their going to do it to each other anyway. How about I sell kiddie-porn to pediophiles because "if not me then who, if now now then when?". I can go cheat on my wife because "women have been doing it forever".

  211. discovered??? by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

    I don't understand why everyone is always saying that America was discovered. It was inhabited even longer before anyone ever "discovered" the place. The Native Americans (or Indians as some people below like to call them) lived here long before Columbus, the Vikings, or now the Chinese ever came here. An uninhabited place can be discovered, but not some place that already has people with permanent settlements living there. If they didn't live here before the land bridge, they came over across the land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska through what is now the Bering Strait. No one discovered America, they merely found a piece of land that no Europeans (or now Asians i guess) had colonized and pushed away the original inhabitants, even though they had already been living here for quite some time.

    --
    please me, have no regrets.
  212. Thanks for the insight, Squee. by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

    But remember, Columbus discovered America in 1429.

    Me like obscure references.

    --
    Happy people make bad consumers.
  213. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmz does this mean all those historybooks need to be changes? Wow i'm going to buy some stocks ;-)
    Nope, as anybody can tell you, History books have a slant towards Western civilization and generally ignore the fact that the Chinese was, for most of recorded history, 3-400 years more advanced than the West.

  214. don't pat yourself on the back yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...those were Turkish troops in Eastern Europe, not Persians. Big difference.

  215. Winners history. by Luguber123 · · Score: 1

    Who cares who found this continent first, the ones occupying it will allways be the ones that writes the history about it. Calling vikings berzerkers is like calling your housekeeper a prostitute when compared to what the frenchmen and the englishmen have done to modern history. If somebody else was there first (like before the vikings, 900-1100 years before some guy formely known as Jesus) you should be happy that it was asians, atleast they have a genuine knowledge of mathematics, the only true science.

    What really happened is hardly interesting, if we were not told history in schools, then my oppinion is that we would be more willing to learn about others(ie. less prejustice).

    Ok, it's friday and I'm halfway down my first sixpack, but I think this is approximatly what i think :)

  216. Re:USA weren't founded on greed, more like freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No it wasnt. It was founded on human nature. dont give me crap about freedom. Every civilization on earth oppresses people. dont tell me you believe that america was founded on freedom. Those who built america did it for profit. Look at John hancock a business man he was involved with starting the revoloution. So were a bunch of other rich guys. It is the rich and influential who do things. Ordinary people just go on with their lives doing nothing and are not in a position to change anything.

  217. fusang anyone? by nickynicky9doors · · Score: 2

    This is old hat to anyone who has bothered to read beyond the precusory level(s) of chinese history. Try http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1028.htm for a quick introduction. Sadly the journey(s) only serve to underscore the xenophobia rife throughout China's history. On a lighter note researching the itinerant buddhist monk who supposedly recorded the journey provides good entertainment. Fusang has long been worth a book by a wannabe historian/archeologist. Now that the main stream media has the bit in its mouth hollywood might go along for the ride. Do I see a vessel for the rebirth of the careers of Cheech and Chong sailing over the horizon.

    --

    heuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
  218. Re:Actualy American Indians discovered it first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they didn't know they were "discovering" it, then they were not "discovering" it.

    As someone has said, whoever discovered water was not a fish.

  219. Re:No - MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's "its" not "it's"

    thank you

  220. Re:My experiences in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in case you didn't know, that was a troll talking.

  221. Many firsts that were lasts by volts · · Score: 1

    Chinese history is replete with scientific and intellectual firsts like Zheng He's explorations -that were crushed by a stifling political power structure that protected incumbent interests and crushed change. After his explorations, Zheng He fell out of favor and the fleet was dismantled, there was no stomach to exploit contact with the outside world.

    Jared Diamonds 'Guns, Germs and Steel' has a rather gripping discussion of the whole thing.

  222. Re:Erm, great. AND by abolith · · Score: 1

    America's last great defensive line...... rough neighborhoods, 3 million pissed people with guns..... ouch

    --
    if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
  223. Discovered America?? by Stu_28 · · Score: 1

    Can someone please explain to me, how you discover a land that has people already living on it? If anyone discovered the Americas first, wouldn't it be the American Indians (a.k.a Native Americans)? I mean all the Vikings, Columbus, or Chinese could haved done is been made aware of its existance after the fact...

  224. yeah by poemofatic · · Score: 2

    there's a lot of hollywood between us and any understanding of indian life. But some of the tribes (e.g. Pima) were very peaceful, moving away from the others and settling on plateaus, farming, etc. Then you have the Apaches, which basically lived off of raiding their neighbors.

    Nevertheless, the subtext of your post seems to imply that if others kill/steal then ot's ok for me to treat them the same way, which is kinda the evil version of the golden rule -- very sick, that line of thinking.

    Also noteworhy is that while there are a few examples of colonists forsaking the western way of life and living as Indians, there are no examples (in the colonial days) of the other thing happening -- Indians voluntarily joining to live in the colonies. Of course, that could be interpreted in a lot of ways (the westerners were more open-minded, or they were self-selected as explorers) other than discrimination against Indians.

    --

    When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.

  225. Maps by N8F8 · · Score: 2

    I think this guy will use the fact that Columbus had map charts to use for sailing here. I've read a brief synopisi that tries to chain from early Chinese maps through some Chinese dynasyt that mothballed their sailing fleet and destroyed most recorded history, but that some Spanish silor got ahold of a copy that later resultd in the maps Columbus had. I read the story from a link on DailyGrail.com, a great site for causual reading when your're bored and wondering what all the loonies are doing.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Maps by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      Please help me... I thought Columbus didn't even know about the americas and was trying to reach Asia..

  226. More linkage by N8F8 · · Score: 1

    Here

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  227. What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh. So people complain that americans/europeans are euro-centric when they say Columbus discovered America? But now the article says the Chinese discovered America before Columbus? Does that mean the article is too Asian-centric?
    Nevertheless, the Native Americans discovered America before anyone. Then the Vikings (Lief Ericson) discovered it around 1000 AD - and even established a colony.
    But the dumbest quote in the article? 'The writings and logs of Christopher Columbus, James Cook and Ferdinand Magellan acknowledge they had and used maps,' Mr Menzies said. 'The question is: Who drew those maps? The answer is: The Chinese, who were the first to rule the oceans, with Zheng He's ships, each crewed by 500 or more men.' Ummmm. The fact that Columbus used maps does NOT mean that he used maps of the Americas! And I highly doubt the maps of the Americas made their way to Columbus before he sailed.

  228. Kanada �ber Alles by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

    those dastardly canucks won't wait to be overrun by some foreign power...

    http://www.standonguard.com/index2.html

    1. Re:Kanada �ber Alles by aoeuid · · Score: 1

      Do you know I would vote for anyone calling themselves the Canadian World Domination Party so fast it would make your head spin? I think thats the key to unseating the Liberals, forget this Canadian Alliance/Conservative bickering...World Domination is what Canadians really want!

  229. The Indians discovered america by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All evidence suggests the indians migrated to the americas, hence they were the discoverers.

  230. Native North Americans discover Europe by Performer+Guy · · Score: 2

    REUTERS: dateline 8 March 2002.

    Headline:
    Native North Americans discover Europe.

    Today the Sioux Nation officially announced the successfull return of their recent expedition across the Atlantic Ocean lead by Soaring Eagle. Declaring the expedition an incredible success the tribal elders announced the discovery of a vast continent previously unrecorded in their tribal folklore. The continent is populated by by large tribes who live in surprisingly advanced cities for such an unexplored area. Tribal elder Chief Running Water declared "this is a great achivement, Soaring Eagle will go down in history for this incredible discovery".

    The consulates of several major European countries had not returned our calls at the time this story went to press.

  231. Re: Moral of the story by Xerion · · Score: 1

    So, to make sure you "discovered" something, you must:

    1) intent to make a profit
    2) gain exclusive control
    3) completely crush your competition, even if they got there first

    hmm, sounds very familiar...

  232. Re:Erm, great. AND by nobody69 · · Score: 1

    How could I forget bad neighborhoods...

    --
    "Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
  233. Chinese ship's anchors litter the west coast... by andrewski · · Score: 1

    The chinese used, and still do use large, circular (wheel-shaped) stone blocks with a hole drilled in the middle as an anchor. Divers and beachcombers commonly find these object from the coast of Mexico all the way north to Canada, suggesting that the Chinese who came to America weren't small bands of explorers, but large parties. Other evidence includes Chinese documentation of an expedition of 5000+ people led by a monk, and epigraphers make many connections between carvings in China and mezoamerica, especially in jade. In fact, some geologists have asserted that certain pieces of jade found in Mexico could only have been quarried in China.

    My question is this: Why in the heck are we still teaching lies to school children?

  234. but Europe's score is still higher in the long run by Rocko+Bonaparte · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sure, the Chinese finished researching "monarchy," "compass," and "gunpowder" before the rival European civilizations. However, the Europeans managed to steal the technology and upgraded their barracks to produce the new gun-equipped units. The Chinese countered by building the Great Wall wonder, which boosted their score significantly. The Europeans, always at war with each other, weren't as successful. However, they managed to eek out metallurgy, which nullified the Great Wall wonder. Soon after, they started building galleons and frigates.

    All the European players found they couldn't build anymore cities on their part of the map, and decided to load the settlers on some boats and go romping around in the ocean to the west. They had not been explored there before. Sure, they had loaded some caravans onto boats to boost their gold intake, but they only sent them to the south and east.

    Previously, the Chinese had sent a small fleet skirting around the world to get a good feel of where all the other civilizations were, but they hadn't put any settlers on their ships [big booboo]. So when the Europeans found this new land mass, it was a free-for-all. That is, with the exception of barbarians wandering into their towns. So they built up some musketeer units and captured the precious barbarian diplomat and got his ransom. That changed the momentum and put the Europeans squarely in the lead, later on leading to riflemen and mechanized infantry. However, the game's still open since nobody's launched a ship to Alpha Centauri yet.

    --
    No I'm not trolling.
  235. Re:Lief? by CyberDruid · · Score: 2

    I am fairly sure that no famous vikings were ever named "Lief"...
    The guys name was "Leif Eriksson" (or "Leffe" to his friends ;).

    --

    Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati

  236. Woops by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

    I bet they're kicking their asses now for not taking all the land they discovered. I wonder why they didn't start colonizing? Maybe at the time it wasn't feasible...?

  237. Redundant, but what the Hell.. by Slickoil · · Score: 1

    I guess all the studies years ago and the documentaries on CBC, Discovery, the relics found in the Maritime Provinces, and even the frickin Vignettes cartoon commercials are all wrong in the 'fact' that the Vikings were the first seafaring people to reach the New World around the year 1000 AD. Where do they come up with those crazy ideas? I know that there has to be posts like this, but still. They're all nuts.

  238. An interesting background about Cheng Ho's sail by jonearth · · Score: 1

    Excerpt from here

    When Ma Ho was ten years old (around 1381), he was captured along with other children when the Chinese army invaded Yunan to take control over the region. At the age of 13 he was castrated, as were other young prisoners, and he was placed as a servant in the household of the Chinese Emperor's fourth son (out of twenty-six total sons), Prince Zhu Di.


    . ..Zhu Di renamed Ma Ho as Cheng Ho..

    Yes, this man has a terrible experience in his childhood... In China, all king's male servant has their sexual organs cut before they can serve the king and queen.


    Cheng Ho, who was said to have been seven feet tall, was given greater power when Zhu Di became emperor in 1402. One year later, Zhu Di appointed Cheng Ho admiral and ordered him to oversee the construction of a Treasure Fleet to explore the seas surrounding China. Admiral Cheng Ho was the first eunuch appointed to such a high military position in China.


    Zhu Di is a good emperor but he only becomes king after he has engaged in a putsch. The orginal king, who is Zhu Di's little brother, disappears in the captial during the putsch. There is a conspiracy theory that Cheng Ho's sail is actually motivated by King Zhu Di's attempt to find and kill his lost brother, who is rumoured to be seen somewhere in South Asia around Philiphines and
    Malaysia.

  239. Just before Columbus? Make that 4500 years ago... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2
    Here is a shameless OCR:

    Good-Bye Columbus day!
    16 possible explorations of America before Columbus

    • 1. HSI and HO (c. 2640 B.C.), Chinese
      Based on evidence derived from the geographical text Shan Hai Ching T'sang-chu and the chronicle Shan Hai ling, it is argued that the Chinese imperial astronomers Hsi and Ho were the first explorers of America in the 27th century B.C. Ordered by Emperor Huang Ti to make astronomical observations in the land of Fu Sang - the territories to the east of China - the two men sailed north to the Bering Strait and then south along the North American coastline. They settled for a while with the "Yao people," ancestors of the Pueblo Indians living near the Grand Canyon, but eventually journeyed on to Mexico and Guatemala. Retuming to China, they reported their astronomical studies and geographic discoveries to the emperor.
      However, a short time later they were both executed for failing to predict a solar eclipse accurately.
    • 2-5. VOTAN, WIXEPECOCHA, SUME, and BOCHIA (c. 800-400 B.C.), Indian
      According to Hindu legends and to Central American tribal legends, seafaring Hindu missionaries reached the Americas more than 2,000 years before Columbus. Sailing from India to Southeast Asia, they voyaged to the Melanesian and Polynesian islands and then across the Pacific to South and Central America. Votan was a trader from India who lived among the Mayans as a historian and chieftain, while his contemporary, Wixepecocha, was a Hindu priest who settled with the Zapotecs of Mexico. Two more Hindu emigrants were Sume, who reached Brazil and introduced agriculture to the Cabocle Indians, and Bochia, who lived with the Muycas Indians and became the codifier of their laws.
    • 6. HUI SHUN (458 A.D.), Chinese
      Using official Chinese imperial documents and maps from the Liang dynasty, scholars have reconstructed the travels of the Chinese explorer and Buddhist priest Hui Shun and proposed that he arrived in North America in the 5th century. Sailing from China to Alaska in 458, Hui-accompanied by four Afghan disciples-continued his journey on foot down the North American Pacific coast. Reaching Mexico, he taught and preached Buddhism to the Indians of central Mexico and to the Mayans of the Yucatan. Allegedly he named Guatemala in honor of Gautama Buddha. After more than 40 years in America, he returned to China, where he reported his adventures to Lord Yu Kie and Emperor Wu in 502.
    • 7. ST. BRENDAN (c. 550), Irish
      Two medieval manuscripts, The Voyage of Saint Brendan the Abbot and the Book of Lismore, tell of an Irish priest who, with 17 other monks, sailed west from Ireland and reached the "Land Promised to the Saints." Employing a curragh-a leather-hulled boat still in use in Ireland-Brendan and his companions made a sea pilgrimage that lasted seven years during the 6th century A.D. They traveled to Iceland, Greenland, and Newfoundland, and one authority asserts that Brendan reached the Caribbean island of Grand Cayman, which he called the Island of Strong Men. Brendan returned safely to his Irish monastery and reported on his travels, but died soon after. In 1977 Timothy Severin, sailing a modern curragh, retraced Brendan's voyage to America.
    • 8. BJARNI HERJULFSON (986), Norse
      According to two medieval Icelandic narratives, the Flateyjarbok and Hauk's Book, a young Norse merchant named Bjarni Herjulfson sailed from Iceland towards Greenland to visit his father, who lived there, but was blown off course by a gale. When the storm ended, Bjami sighted a hilly, forested land, which is now thought to have been Cape Cod. Wanting to reach the Norse settlements on Greenland before winter, he did not drop anchor and send men ashore to explore. Instead, he sailed northeast along Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and then headed north to Greenland. He was criticized by the Greenlanders for not investigating the new land, and his discoveries stimulated further exploration of North America.
    • 9. LEIF ERICSON (1003), Norse
      In 1003, Leu bought Bjarni Berjulfson's ship and, with a 35-man crew, sailed for North America. While most scholars agree that Ericson did land in North America, there is disagreement about where he landed. The only Viking site ever found in the New World is L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, which was discovered in 1960 and excavated for the next eight years by BeIge Ingstad, a Norwegian explorer. According to Ingstad, Ericson's first landing was at Baffin Island, which he named Belluland; his second was at Labrador, which he called Markland; and finally he reached Newfoundland, which he christened Vinland. To Leu and his companions, Vinland was an abundant country, rich in game, wild wheat, and timber, and its climate was mild compared to Iceland and Greenland. The explorers spent the winter in Vinland, where they constructed a village of "big houses." In 1004 Leu returned to Greenland, where he was given the honorary name of Leu the Lucky. Leif Ericson, one of the many discoverers of America.
    • 10. THORVALD ERICSON (1004), Norse
      The Icelandic sagas record that, soon after Leu Ericson returned to Greenland, he gave his ship to his brother Thorvald. In the autumn of 1004, Thorvald sailed to Leifs Vinland settlement and wintered there. The next summer, while exploring the 8t. Lawrence region, Thorvald and his crew attacked a band of Indians, killing eight of them. In retaliation, the Indians ambushed the Norsemen, and Thorvald was killed in the ensuing battle. In 1007 the expedition's survivors returned to Greenland and took with them Thorvald's body, which was delivered to Leu for burial.
    • 11. THORFINN KARLSEFNI (1010), Norse
      The Greenlanders' Saga and Karlsefni's Saga are the two medieval sources that give accounts of the Icelander Thorfinn Karlsefni's attempt to establish the first permanent European settlement in America. In 1010, with 60 men and 5 women, Thorfinn - who was LeifEricson's brother-in-law - sailed to Leifs Vinland camp, where he planned to colonize. In Vinland, Thorfinn's wife gave birth to a son-the first European child bom in America - who was named Snorri. Thorfinn explored extensively, traveling as far south as Long Island and the Hudson River and, possibly, Chesapeake Bay. Four years later, Thorfinn and the Norse settlers retumed to Greenland because of Indian attacks and because of violent intemal discord caused by the shortage of women.
    • 12-13. PRINCE MADOG AB OWAIN GWYNEDD (1170, 1190), Welsh
      The Atlantic voyages of this Welsh prince were recorded by the medieval historian Gymoric ap Grono Guntyn Owen and by the 17th-century chroniclers Thomas Herbert and Richard Hakluyt. Because of political conflicts with his brothers, Prince Madog sailed from Abergwili, Wales, in 1170. He voyaged westward across the Atlantic and landed somewhere in the Americas, where he built and fortified a settlement. After several years Madog retumed to Wales, leaving 120 men behind in the new colony. In 1190 he again crossed the Atlantic to discover that most of his men had been annihilated, presumably by Indians. Madog himself died in the New World a short time later. The actual site of Madog's settlement is disputed. Possible locations are the Florida peninsula, Mobile, Ala., and the West Indies.
    • 14. KING ABUBAKARI n (1311), Malian
      According to medieval Arab historical and geographical documents and Malian oral epics, King Abubakari II of Mali, a black Muslim, sailed from West Africa to northeastem South America. After learning from Arab scholars that there was land on the west side of the Atlantic, King Abubakari became obsessed with the idea of extending his kingdom into these as yet unclaimed lands. He mobilized the resources of his empire to hire Arab shipbuilders from Lake Chad to build a fleet. (Their descendants were employed by Thor Heyerdahl to construct his reed boat, Ha I.) In 1311 the king and his crew sailed down the Senegal River and across the Atlantic. It is believed that while he sighted the north coast of South America, he made his first landfall in Panama. Then King Abubakari and his entourage supposedly traveled south from Panama and settled in the Inca Empire.
    • 15. PAUL KNUTSON (1356), Norwegian
      In a letter dated 1354, King Magnus of Norway and Sweden ordered the Norwegian sea captain Paul Knutson to joumey to Greenland to restore the Christian faith to the N orsemen still living there. Knutson sailed to Greenland in 1355 and, the next year, to Vinland, where he established a camp on the North American coast. Knutson's camp was probably at Newport, R.I., where a tower believed to have been constructed by his party still stands. One group of Knutson's men, who explored Hudson Bay and the territory to the south of it, are thought to be responsible for the Kensington Stone, a rock with possible Norse runes carved on its surface, which was found in central Minnesota. Most of the members of the expedition, including Knutson, died in America. A few survivors returned to Norway in 1364.
    • 16. JOHANNES SCOLP and JOAO V AZ CORTE REAL (1476), Danish and Portuguese
      In 1475 King Alfonso of Portugal and King Christian I of Denmark arranged a joint expedition to North America to find a sea route to China. Danish sea captain Johannes Scolp and a Portuguese nobleman named Joao Vaz Corte Real were appointed as commanders of the combined fleet. Sailing from Denmark across the N orth Atlantic to the Labrador coast, they explored Hudson Bay, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the St. Lawrence River. Failing to find a sea passage to Asia, they returned to Denmark, where their discoveries were largely ignored.
    Compiled by Rodger J. Fadness

    In "THE BOOK OF LISTS#2"
    The people's Almanac(r)
    William Morrow and Co. Inc., New-York, 1980

    pp. 136-140

  240. China discovers humanity! now that would be news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China discovers humanity! now that would be news

  241. Re:but Europe's score is still higher in the long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're probably way too late to get modded up, but if I had any points right now that would be a +1 Funny...

  242. Hrmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is pretty obvious that columbus was the last to discover and colonise america.

  243. Stop Acting Like a Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, am glad that the Europeans took over America. Most of the Indian tribes were barbaric. If they had been allowed to rule what is the United States of America (USA), we would be a backward dump that is on par with China.

    Stop thinking and acting like a Chinese. A piece of land does not belong to you because you have a particular ethnicity.

  244. Basques trading in America as early as 1380AD by iskander · · Score: 1

    You may be interested in the following snippet from Europe's Mystery People: Did the Basques Beat Columbus? by Evan Hadingham, in World Monitor, Spetember 1992, p34-42 (p37), where the boldface is courtesy of yours truly:

    Recently, historian Robert Delort, of Switzerland's University of Geneva, discovered remarkable evidence implying that the New World fur trade may go back long before the whaling expeditions and, for that matter, Columbus. Delort has unearthed British customs records indicating that Basque traders landed a heavy volume of beaver pelts at English ports from 1380 to 1433. Since north European beaver population were already nearly extinct by that time, Delort speculates the source is more likely to have been the New World (the pelts were delivered in rolls -- the way Quebec Indians stored them). Delort emphasizes, however, that his conclusion is preliminary. Certainly the idea is not far-fetched. An Icelandic chronicle from 1412 mentions the presence of Basque whalers in Iceland, a testimony backed up by two contemporary maps depicting Basque whaling ships there.

    That would mean that the Basques beat the Chinese by at least 40 years.

    Now, it probably never occurred to the Basque, who have themselves endured being misrepresented as savages by so-called great civilizations throughout history, that they should be educating or saving or conquering the native North Americans or any other trading partner, so the dubious honor of "discovering America" (i.e., sacking the nations of America) was consequently left to groups willing to accept the inevitable collateral damage (i.e., willing perpetrate the necessary atrocities) that follows in the wake of their universalist aspirations. It's interesting to note that the native Basques are now not much better off than the native North Americans: the Basque of today are excluded from the mainstream of our consumer-oriented urban society by their own so-called political and intellectual elite, and are preserved by this manner of isolation as a valuable ethnic relic. "Oh, you can't put a road there -- it'd spoil the {beautiful|sacred} landscape; just use a mule, like you always have, OK?" There is even a new, "unified" Basque language, complete with (unnecessary) latin-derived neologisms, designed to turn the average Castillian-speaking city-dweller of the Basque provinces (a lot of whom are actually Spaniards) into a sort of "next-generation" Basque citizen. I wonder how long it will be before a big fence goes up around the Goiherri and they nail a "Reservation" sign on it. Or would that be "erreserba"? :-> But, then, I suppose one could argue that it is the (decidedly pan-European) Basque city dwellers who are the true heirs of the Basque to whom the navigational feats in question are attributable -- you know, the same bastards who sold out (Republican) Bilbao during the Spanish Civil War.

    Anyway.

    The Basques were probably trading in America by 1380AD. Whether this constitutes "discovery" is "left to the reader", etc.

  245. Just like gunpowder by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    So the Chinese discovered the New World and continued their proud tradition of making innovative discoveries and not doing a damned thing with 'em.

  246. "Discovery" is a Float, not Boolean by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    (* The Vikings beat him by a few hundred years, and there is plenty of evidence that European fishermen had been sailing across the Atlantic pretty much all through history. *)

    If you count anybody who got lost in a storm and drifting up to America alive as a "discoverer", then Grog riding in his big log was probably the first discover.

    (* The only thing that makes Columbus different is that by the time he got there the mechanisms and motivation to publicise the discovery and start the process of conquest and colonisation were in place. *)

    He documented it better and followed up better than any prior explorer (it appears so far).

  247. Columbus discovered my ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Vikings had been coming here before Chris' grandparents were born.

    I bet some of you even think that George Washington was "the first american president" or that Al Gore actually won the 2000 election.

  248. Re:more information on this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kentucky Fried Chicken

    300 NE Rice Rd
    LEES SUMMIT, MO 64086

  249. doesn't mean anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a Chinese. The fact that whoever discovered America other than Columbus doesn't have much meaning to us. This kind of discovery has little impact on the history anyway.

  250. How Do You Discover Something T'wasn't Lost by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1
    There were native indians before any European, Scandinavian or Far Eastern civilization set foot on North or South America.

    What apparently was meant was, when did so-and-so land on [North|South] America? And, who was first among those? Sheeeiiit.

  251. Re:They Lost a Contract War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The natives played the game western style. They won a contract war. The game is survival. The world is the playing ground. Everything is fair game including gov't. People's pity is just as powerful (and legit) of a weapon as biological warfare and shady business contracts, but I guess you think it would be more just to attempt genocide to steal land rather than to act pathetic to get a minor tax break, but that puts you in a very small minority which includes the kkk and nazis. The rest of us are in another group called human beings.

  252. Hence Torvald is meaningless compared to Gates by ondelette · · Score: 1

    Please. Ordinary people have made the difference throughout history.

    The fact that history mostly records the rich and the famous is another story. Also, don't forget that people who make a difference often end up rich and influencial. They didn't necessarily start that way.

    Bill Gates wasn't famous and influencial when he founded Microsoft. Torvald wasn't very rich when he started hacking Linux... and so on.

  253. Two wrongs == right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But they didn't. Also, two wrongs don't make a right. When one side does a bad, thing, it doesn't make it ok for another side to do a bad thing. Or do you think that wtc was 'ok'? After all, we would have blown up their biggest building if we had the guts to do it. Oh, we did. Oh, I guess that wtc was really ok (by your standards then). I personally don't think any war is ok, but then again, hating to see people die is not patriotic if the people are not on your side. I was shocked and horrified by wtc, but you could have guessed that from what I said above. Shocking how many people have heard me say I was against the war, then they thought I liked wtc. What idiots. I said I was against killing and they say I'm a killer. We need logic at schools.

    1. Re:Two wrongs == right? by prizzznecious · · Score: 1

      WTC perhaps not right- but justified? Well that's something else altogether.

      --

      visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
  254. Re:FRTTFRTTFP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, yeah? Well, I got FRTTFRTTFRTTFP. More meta than you are!

  255. Space Program and Cheng Ho/Zheng He by aebrain · · Score: 1
    "However, a new Ming emperor had come to the throne. His scholar-officials criticized Zheng's achievements, complaining about their great expense. China was now fighting another barbarian enemy on its western borders and needed to devote its resources to that struggle. When a court favorite wanted to continue Zheng He's voyages, he was turned down. To make sure, the court officials destroyed the logs that Zheng He had kept. We know about his voyages only from the pillar and some accounts that his crew members wrote."

    In 1976, the US terminated manned space exploration, because it was too expensive. In 500 years, I wonder if archaeologists will argue that the legendary "Saturn 5" couldn't have worked, rockets don't scale up unlike contra-grav units.

    --
    Zoe Brain - Rocket Scientist
  256. The Mummies of Urumchi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Ok folks. The subject mummies (search for it on the web) were caucasian (european?) inhabitants of China about 1500 years before they started sailing around. Who discovered what now, hmmm?

  257. Re:Baseball Revisionism by thelizman · · Score: 1

    Good point, but *every* game is almost always derivative of another game. The resemblence between rounders and the modern game of baseball is scant at best.

    Hell, the native Americans played a mean game of Basketball, the American sport "invented" by a Canadian.

  258. Re: China will definitely beat Japan by Hidden+Dragon · · Score: 1

    No, you are totally wrong. I tell you, Japan is shit! China will definitely beat Japan if there was a World War III. Chinese Army harnessed very advanced technology and trained a lot of intelligent commanders in the last 50 years since the WW II. Now we've got the most powerful long-range nuclear missile, nuclear-powered submarine, JIAN-8 III Fighter Planes which is as good as USSR's Su-27 and you American F-22, and last but not the least, the bravest soldiers in the world! We are the best!

  259. Re:Erm, great. AND by thelizman · · Score: 1

    The Chinese army would'nt make it past Long Beach before a high ranking officer gets whacked by the bloods in a drive by. Shit, we're so hungry to kill we gack each other on a daily basis.

    Besides, the PLA is needed to keep their own country under boot heel.