376
Unbiased AI Rule (lemmy.world)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 130 points 5 months ago

Well, Columbus himself didn't conquer much. He established a few settlement, but the real conquering was done by others.

More accurate comparison would be:

Describe Hernan Cortez in one word.

(GPT-4) Conquistador

[-] candyman337 61 points 5 months ago

Columbus and his men killed a lot of people brutally. He wasn't really a conqueror, more a murderer and a monster

[-] mindbleach 18 points 5 months ago

He is far from distinguished in that endeavor. What makes him relevant to history is the part where he found people to brutalize, way the fuck elsewhere.

The Mongols just saw some towns out across the grasslands and said "I'll have that." Ad nauseum.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Technically, he didn't even find them first. Not only did Christopher Columbus never step foot on the NA continent, but Norsemen such as Leif Erikson were there before him centuries earlier. John Cabot made a much larger contribution to that.

[-] mindbleach 5 points 5 months ago

Historical nitpicks and footnootes. The unambiguous inflection point for all of Europe going "holy shit, new lands" was that Italian schmuck and his three boats.

Leif and company went "hey look, more Greenland" and barely amounted to Discovery channel dramatization. The century after Columbus's return transformed three continents.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I was about to chime in with an "Ackshually!", but yeah.. fair enough, all of your statements are true. I just want to point out that he also kidnapped a lot of the ones that weren't murdered.

I will, however, concede that he was a very good navigator, and that's the only positive thing I will say about him.

[-] [email protected] 30 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yet they both committed atrocities (torture, murder, rape and god knows what else) and only one is being hailed as “explorer”.

Edit: I’m not saying we should hail Genghis Khan as an explorer, I’m saying that Christopher Columbus should be deplored as a murderer and a marauder, not praised as an explorer.

[-] [email protected] 37 points 5 months ago

Being a murderer and explorer are not mutually exclusive. If ChatGPT said "Murderer" one might presume that he was simply a local killer, captured by the law, and convicted a la Ted Bundy. Explorer is a more appropriate title for Columbus, like "Dictator" is likely more appropriate than "Murderer" for Hitler. Murderer, sadly, is too commonplace for people of their evil.

[-] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago

For real. Name the worst serial killer you know, and Columbus was probably worse than that. It sickens me to read about it.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Why do we assume ‘explorer’ has a positive moral implication?

To me, looking through all of history, exploration has largely been a net negative to humanity. Modern day exploration isn’t terribly far off. The more we explore the ocean the more we strip it of resources. The more we explore space the more we look to exploit it for wealth.

Explorers are enablers of worse people at best.

this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
376 points (99.2% liked)

196

15758 readers
2961 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS