Christopher Columbus was awful (but this other guy wasn't)

[Rev. Rye]

Leif Erikson does have his own day, so you know. It's October 9th this year.

Honestly, given that Erickson A)has a day so close to Columbus Day anyway, B) has proven to be less of a genocidal shit than Columbus, C) at least landed on the North American continent, and D) At least seemed aware that he had discovered a land completely unknown to his civilization (which Columbus wasn't; he insisted to his dying day that he set foot in India), why not replace Columbus Day with Leif Erickson Day?

[Crossless2.0]

Leif Erikson does have his own day, so you know.  It's October 9th this year.

Honestly, given that Erickson A)has a day so close to Columbus Day anyway, B) has proven to be less of a genocidal shit than Columbus, C) at least landed on the North American continent, and D) At least seemed aware that he had discovered a land completely unknown to his civilization (which Columbus wasn't; he insisted to his dying day that he set foot in India), why not replace Columbus Day with Leif Erickson Day?

Because Italian v. Norwegian riots are an ugly thing to behold and should be avoided at all costs.

[Minimalist]

Interesting...but flawed.  Intentionally, I suspect.

Ignores the fact that Columbus was delayed from making his second voyage while Spanish, Portuguese and Papal diplomats wrangled over how to divvy up the new world.  He did not sail until September, 1493 and only after Pope Alexander VI issued a series of bulls which confirmed Spanish rights in the Americas and Portuguese rights in Africa.  Alexander VI also extended an earlier finding that non-christian indigenous peoples could be enslaved.

Columbus may or may not have been intent on exploring for his second voyage.... but the people putting up the money had a whole different idea.

I notice that pope frank is in no hurry to retract the Inter Caetera bulls issued by Alex VI while at the same time proclaiming a genocidal shit like Junipero Serra a "saint."
The Indians noticed, too.... but they are always whining about something.

[Regina]

Given the track record of the Vikings, I'd be surprised if the Vikings and the Natives were singing kumbaya round the fire together, so I wouldn't be quick to call this Erikson man a friend to Natives. People also need to stop thinking of Native Americans as this romanticised peaceful group who went to war never. They had their inter-tribal conflicts and would have been as fiercely defensive over their land as people in any other part of the world were back then.

More than likely the Vikings fought with the Natives, because that's generally how shit went down wherever The Vikings landed.

[Minimalist]

It might be even deeper than that, Yeaux.  The Vikings would have been as much carriers of European diseases as Columbus' crew.  Yet, there is no evidence of disease outbreaks from Viking times.  Had there been, one would have expected to see some degree of resistance to those diseases when Europeans did arrive.

In his book, 1491, Charles Mann points out that while colonization of North America did not begin until the early 17th century there had been contact as fishermen from Europe began checking out American waters.  They would put in for water and provisioning and their contact with native-americans was sufficient to begin the spread of the various epidemics which utterly decimated the indigenous population long before colonists arrived.

It's quite a good book.

[Regina]

It might be even deeper than that, Yeaux.  The Vikings would have been as much carriers of European diseases as Columbus' crew.  Yet, there is no evidence of disease outbreaks from Viking times.  Had there been, one would have expected to see some degree of resistance to those diseases when Europeans did arrive.

I've seen some attempts at explanations for this before. A common belief is that, because the groups of Natives the Vikings encountered were so isolated and small, it wasn't as easy for the viruses to spread throughout the whole continents. Thus any Natives who got infected by the Vikings would have died before they could spread it.

When the Spanish arrived later, they arrived in Mesoamerica and The Andes, which were densely populated with large cities - the perfect conditions for disease to spread (which Greenland and Northern Canada have never had).

[Minimalist]

Mann makes the point that the majority of the victims of the plagues died without ever seeing a European.  The germs spread from the coasts along tribal trade routes.  They never knew what was killing them.  So it is possible that L'Anse aux Meadows was so isolated that it did not come into contact with native-americans.  Evidence for that comes from the fact that there are no remains of native-american around the site dating from the same time period but, even more to the point, models constructed by archaeologists show nothing resembling defenses.

What does not seem plausible is that a native-american group would have been so isolated that they would have had no contact with other groups.  That simply does not match the model we see elsewhere.

I'm glad you brought up the Spanish.  We have only the Conquistador's claims that they faced massive armies with a handful of troops.  You know, like lots of military commanders, they could simply be full of shit.