Invaded or settled? depends who you ask but definitely not "Discovered" by the white man.

I just got back from Peru and it's the same there with indigenous people - Columbus absolutely did not "discover" South America.

Well, I dunno. I've just discovered the name "Iluka" - however many other people discovered it before me. I think Columbus did discover South America, although I have since discovered that "Columbus" was not his real name.

That's the guy who thought he was near India when he was in the Caribbean so he named it the West Indies and the indigenous people around those parts were called Indians.

.... and for good reason.

When Columbus lived, people thought that the earth was flat. They believed the Atlantic Ocean to be filled with monsters large enough to devour their ships, and with fearful waterfalls over which their frail vessels would plunge to destruction. Columbus had to fight these foolish beliefs in order to get men to sail with him. He felt sure the earth was round.”

Thanks for the lesson, I wouldn't have known that and anyone would think I was being ironic.

Of course. I should have remembered you are a world class high school history teacher.

Is this you??

Which is why both invaded and settled are the appropriate terms to use. A country cannot be foundered if already inhabited.


Ignorance as to its previous existence can hardly be a reason to claim discovery either.

Do they even teach that stuff in school these days?

No idea, probably not, that's what wikipedia is for

Which of course in reference to the above post, can create a large degree of confusion. While Wikipedia may assist in covering large degrees of ignorance,it does not fill in the spaces that would allow for real knowledge on the matter nor the ability to argue a subject matter based on learned experience.

I agree the ignorance around may well suggest otherwise as does the apathy.