I wanted to simply add the Sinclair connection to this recent discussion on Columbus for those that may be more recent subscribers. There is good evidence from Peter Cummings and others that Christopher Columbus was related to the Sinclairs through a marriage in his family. Also the prior discussions on the Sinclair and Templar ties to Portugal will be worthy a a quick reread on this topic as to possible tie ins to Sinclair cultural history.
Now without adding in detail my comments on the deplorable teaching we have in all North America as to moist history, I want to add some factual information to the Columbus discussion.
I bring the following intelligence to bear simply from the historical perspective and add that the Hollywood versions of the story are historical fiction and the politicalization of Chritopher Columbus was a rather recent phenomenon and also has no historical or factuual basis.
Now the American historical perspective has traditionally been in error on the conjecture that Columbus ever set foot in the North American Continent and certainly the United States. His doing so I believe is in error. He did not or simply there is no evidence of his doing discovering "America" proper. He is thought to have reached the Panama area but a good portion of the West Indies claims to have had Columbus landing there at one time or another and it is mostly speculative as the maps that were drafted were not that accurate and not detailed.
Now I comment on the issue as to who discovered America first, and whether Columbus was looking for spices. Again this arrives out of poor authorship some years ago and confusing biographies on a historical character we still do not have much knowledge of. .
From the archelogical perspective there is as much evidence for the Henry Sinclair expedition as there was for Columbus when both authorities are based on diaries. Again the point was moot, because neither discovered North America, and the time periods as to their importance for doing so were different. There is good evidence to suggest that The Basque fisherman (Spanish) discovered the Grand Banks (Newfoundland) as early as 1200. The Vikings arrived well before the year 1000. And there is no one that can truely claim being "first" because all the names we have "Leif" etc., followed the navigation paths and experiences of others. The Viking history comes from Bards, and those stories and legends would have been known or available to Prince Henry before he set sail. The Noregian Greenland Settlements were tithed to Rome and the Pope before 1000. Columbus I believe visited Iceland before he ventured on his voyages. And Iceland had been in touch with the mainland well before 1400.
Again this all relates to a period of history when the value of rocks and trees do not count, and nation states are not expanding and fisherment and navigators are not literate, then documentation is a bit scarce. Exploration followed need and economics with some social motivations thrown in.
Now the Columbus myths are many. One that he wanted to prove the world was not flat. This " world is flat non-science knowledge' was really tied into Catholic teachings and theology and dogma at the time which was a little (sic) intollerant to other ideas and beliefs. Navigarors from before King Solomons time knew accurately about astronomy and the world being round. Vikings, Phonecians and the Templars (with the biggest merchant navy in the middle ages) all were familiar with the world being round. In fact Latitude was a defined science science will before Columbus and the challenge was measuring distance and Longtitude, which knowledge arrived well after 1500.
Now that he went to find the West Indies. I note with admiration that some one noticed he may have been Jewish. I have no authority I have read one way or the other but he was Genoese (sp) not Venitian (Zeno was Venetian (sp) and this was part of the academic rivalry in the 1600s to discredit the Zeno diary by the supporters of the view that the Geneoese were first)
The time period he travelled was a major one for the Jews of Spain in that they were being exciled or exterminated. I have read some historical references to the existance of a map on the initial Columbus Voyage and the absence of Priests accompanying the ships used in the voyages. I also note that the voyages were financed by third parties not the Crown of Spain. On the return of Columbus he went oddly to the crown of Portugal not Spain. Hence many questions still abound as to the complexity of his agenda.
Now the models of the ships he traveled on were frequently denoted with Maltese of Templar Crosses. Interesting speculation. There is no evidence I believe either way as we do not have evidence of the sail design. But this may point to a Sinclair ties as the Templars had gone underground to Malta, France and Scotland.
There is no evidence to support that he committed any atrocities to the native population on any of the three voyages, (Hollywood notwithstanding) and the Carib Indians were not the nation states of the Americas. He was not part of the later Conquistadors and died in Poverty to all accounts.
So why the big deal aside from slanted histories and mythologies? Well he did add vastly to navigation by discovering the south Atlantic trade winds which were used regularly by himself and others after his initial return. He also identified a destination with water resupply. With these two anyone could make the voyage.
It simply became easy to get to a destination where you know how long it would take (a water supply issue) and had a regular route constant winds, and could return easilt (the mid Atlantic Trade winds). This was the route used regularly by all navigators until the advent of steam. So the results, many voyages could follow at any time and yes oddly Jewish Synagogues date in Mexico from 1500. Interesting stuff!
Columbus continues to tie into the Sinclairs as an interesting part and figure in history. It is family, the possible Templar - Masonic connection, the exploration connection, and such speculative ideas as whether Viking navigation was known in the mediteranian, (it was) whether there were maps of the new world before Columbus (speculative) and whether the Jews migration from Spain was tied in to the history (speculative and probable) It took courage to do what he Columbus endeavored. It took courage for the sailors with him. The same can be said of Henry Sinclair who arrived before Columbus. The former lived when nation states were rising in Supremecy. The later lived when nation states were fudalistic. Prince Henry possessed most of the Navigation wisdom of his age before he departed for Greenland and points west. Colubbus may have known all the navigation that came before 1490 which was considerable.
Again we denote an intellectual arrogance to suggest that these individuals traveled in ignorance of navigastion principals and knowledge, that the maritime discipline was applied in isolation of similar knowledge elsewhere.
Neil an novice historian and student of Laurel and others
he writes with a Canadian perspective