History/Philosophy Buffs:

[Strifer]

This seems kind of intuitive, but I was wondering- was there an intellectual movement, or expansion of thought and philosophy that directly resulted from Columbus's first transatlantic voyage?

 

[chambersc]

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/

In the broader sense, I'm almost positive that a mimi intellectual movement was born out of the idea that a new breed of human -- the primitive savage, a noble race who was unconcerned with technological innovations and such -- was discovered on a semmingly unknown land.

As to specific names and dates of publications and movements, I couldn't help you with that. The internet is your friend, though.

 

[IronWing]

I would have to say no to the question. Simply put, the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella was not ripe for intellectual growth. The Spanish exploited their contact with the New World via conquest and enslavement of the natives. In the same year as Columbus' voyage, Ferdinand and Isabella expelled all the Jews of Spain. Ferdinand and Isabella consolidated Christain rule in Spain through conquest. In comparison to the peoples conquered, they were barbarians.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Little, if any. In fact I would argue that the opposite was largely true. With Columbus' discovery the greed and materialism inherent in man multiplied at an alarming rate. Personal growth was largely abandoned in the quest for gold and land.

The one thing I can think of offhand that happened was questioning about a possible lost tribe of Israel when remnants of advanced civilizations were discovered in the Americas. Of course, these were actually Indian civilizations, but at the time it was believed to be impossible since indians were primitave and only whites could build such cultures. This led to an increase in archeology, anthropology, and a few other things. This didn't really get going until the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century though.

You could also argue the eventual rise in representative democracy, but that too was much later and not resultant from Columbus so much as a combination of the enlightenment and the imitative gentility of the colonies.

Many of the major intellectual/philosophical movements of Europe were reactions to years of over-repressive church and state, and not due to discoveries.

 

[dug777]

Nope. a bucketload of gold and some new colonies to administer does not equate to what you are asking

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: dug777
Nope. a bucketload of gold and some new colonies to administer does not equate to what you are asking

So you and the poster above you can adequately say that despite a discovery of a brand new race of people, the sheer fact that there were material riches there trumped this fact?

 

[rudder]

Low post count + his type of question = high school homework assignment that he forgot to do.

 

[McGyver]

he was bored and sick of european women. so he took a ride down atlantic ave to find some other exotic women.

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You could also argue the eventual rise in representative democracy, but that too was much later and not resultant from Columbus so much as a combination of the enlightenment and the imitative gentility of the colonies.

I think you can make a good case that indirectly, Colombus was responsible for the rise of democracy. The over-repressiveness of the church states may have been their reason for leaving, but without a place to go they would have been stuck in whatever country (England, France, etc) they were from. The American Revolution was the first such move to a democratic state and was the catalyst to later movements. If it had never taken place because there was no America, how much longer do you think it would have taken for democracy to arise?

 

[fitzov]

Maybe on the natives' end. Nothing intellectual would seemingly come out of such a thing for the Europeans. 'Philosophy' I think is misplaced here. A contemporary philosopher of the time was Spinoza and the stuff that was going on in Spain at the time would have largely overshadowed any romantic ideas about Columbus.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: crownjules

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You could also argue the eventual rise in representative democracy, but that too was much later and not resultant from Columbus so much as a combination of the enlightenment and the imitative gentility of the colonies.

I think you can make a good case that indirectly, Colombus was responsible for the rise of democracy. The over-repressiveness of the church states may have been their reason for leaving, but without a place to go they would have been stuck in whatever country (England, France, etc) they were from. The American Revolution was the first such move to a democratic state and was the catalyst to later movements. If it had never taken place because there was no America, how much longer do you think it would have taken for democracy to arise?

Definitely indirect as it is very obvious that the Spanish method of colonization led to authoritarian countries in Mexico, Central, and South America while the English method led to stable, well off liberal democracies in the US and Canada.

 

[Kev]

don't do his homework for him, people.

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: Kev
don't do his homework for him, people.

Everyone needs a little help now and again. It's not like anyone has typed out a full essay for the guy, if that be the case.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: crownjules

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You could also argue the eventual rise in representative democracy, but that too was much later and not resultant from Columbus so much as a combination of the enlightenment and the imitative gentility of the colonies.

I think you can make a good case that indirectly, Colombus was responsible for the rise of democracy. The over-repressiveness of the church states may have been their reason for leaving, but without a place to go they would have been stuck in whatever country (England, France, etc) they were from. The American Revolution was the first such move to a democratic state and was the catalyst to later movements. If it had never taken place because there was no America, how much longer do you think it would have taken for democracy to arise?

Definitely indirect as it is very obvious that the Spanish method of colonization led to authoritarian countries in Mexico, Central, and South America while the English method led to stable, well off liberal democracies in the US and Canada.

Well, to be specific, the English method led to revolution and the eventual breakdown of the Empire. It was the writings of the enlightenment, twisted by a wanna-be aristocracy of merit, that led to the formation of our Democratic Republic. Your point is well taken however.

I was in a hurry during my initial post, and the more I think about it the less I can conceive of ANY intellectual or philosophical advancements stemming from Columbus' voyage. Democracy was still 5-6 generations away, and anthropological expansion another still.

As to America's place in world democracy, certainly we are a special case - but hardly essential in my view. The foundations of such a government were being discussed in various European circles. England had already experienced one reform, and France was close to such establishment pending their own revolution. The real difference between America and other fledgling democracies is that most democratic governments take three tries to establish themselves, while America hit it out of the park first time up. While there would have been some delays had America never been, I believe they would have been truly minor.

chambersc posted this:

So you and the poster above you can adequately say that despite a discovery of a brand new race of people, the sheer fact that there were material riches there trumped this fact?

I'm not an expert on the period, but I do have about 20 history classes done towards my goal of teaching high school history. I'm not saying contrary evidence doesn't exist, I just don't know of any so far.

You have to understand that there was no 'brand new race of people'...there were commodities. There were servants, slaves, amsements, and exploitable resources. From the first moment that Columbus beheld the Arawaks he spoke only of the potential for control and exploitation. The only reason he was even financed to make the trip was the zealous quest of Europeans for the discovery of foreign profits. There was no bold expedition of discovery, there was no adventurer spirit...this was single-minded profiteering in the extreme. Every nation which sent its people into the new world were doing so in a race for lands and peoples to control and exploit and profit from.