The other point to consider is that a large proportion of the peoples in the Americas now trace their history through the timeline of ‘western civilization’. If you take that narrow view of history, the term discovery makes sense since it connects the part of the timeline originating in Greece and Rome and connects it to more recent events. It’s sad to consider the timelines originating in the americas are now footnotes or small offshoots to the traditional way history is taught.

The main problem is that history is messy, complex, and always up for interpretation. The histories of asia, africa, the native peoples of the americas, and even pre-rome europeans are all glossed over. Some of this is cultural self absorption, but I think another reason is that each of these histories could occupy a full course in and of themselves.

The standard curricula in schools is essentially trying to take a broad ‘quick sweep’ of history to understand ‘how did we get here’. Again in some sense it’s very sad, but to the majority of people living in the americas now the simplest way to do that, with the most relevance, is to learn about western civilization. I don’t get upset by the term ‘discovery’, as long as you understand the context of the term. What it really means is discovery of a new continent by Europeans.

The thing that gets me is that he “discovered” land that someone else had been living on for thousands of years.

That doesn’t count as a discovery in my book. And it certainly shouldn’t count as an official United States holiday.

Reference the title, it get’s your attention. Moreover, there are linkages in the content. If something is flat it refers to all being equal. That is the whole point of the book. Happy Reading.