[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Christopher Columbus perspectives
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
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
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, email@example.com
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html