[Gsus_Rawks]

Columbus and The Age of Discovery

Christopher Columbus was an extremely influential and inspirational explorer whose somewhat unintentional discovery has sparked controversy on the sensitive issue of whom to place the responsibility for the death of millions of Native Americans upon. Some think that Columbus is responsible for the genocide of millions of Native Americans. Their arguments are incorrect for the following three reasons: Columbus did not directly kill millions of Native Americans or lead American exploration in a violent way; He was in an Age of Exploration where the world map was being rapidly uncovered and he treated the Native Americans in a friendly and non-hostile way.
The death of Natives in the Americas was largely the result of two factors, warfare and disease, both of which Columbus did not support. It is only reasonable that Columbus should be held responsible solely for his own actions. What other explorers did with Columbus's discovery is their responsibility, just as the inventor of the automobile would never be reasonably charged with all of the deaths as a result of car accidents. Columbus and his crew did not even come in contact with millions of people, therefore they could have not possibly have spread disease or physically killed millions. Likewise, Columbus's spread of disease was not deliberate, in the late 15th century, no European could understand how Columbus could carry a disease that he did not show symptoms for - especially one that would be fatal to a different demographic. Columbus cannot be held responsible for the unintentional spread of the diseases he unknowingly carried.
Additionally, Columbus has been accused of starting warfare and being a conquerer. Columbus did no such thing. Other than enslaving the Americans for economic and financial reasons, (Which was morally and ethically acceptable in the fifteenth ad early sixteenth century, as Europeans were unsure of the humanity of them. "Natives were considered subhuman. In fact, not until 45 years later did the Vatican under Pope Paul II issued an Papal Encyclical positing that the natives were rational beings with a soul."[Tirado]) he didn't even treat the Natives in a hostile way.
Columbus did not massacre the Indigenous peoples or kill them for an unjust reason - the Americans always started the bloodshed. When Columbus first landed in America, the Natives attempted to kill him, "'While we were approaching [the canoe] the Caribs began shooting at us with their bows in such a manner that, had it not been for the shields, half of us would have been wounded' Cuneo said"(Wilford pg.178) Another startling example of Native violence is this:
"[Columbus] discovered that the entire settlement of La Navidad had been massacred and the site burned to the ground. As they searched for any trace of their compatriots, the newcomers discovered a mass grave in which several Spaniards were buried. They discovered also that the village of Columbus’ good friend, Chief Guacanagarí, was burned and destroyed. No one will ever know for sure what happened at La Navidad".
The Natives, in many cases, treated the Europeans with more hostility than the Europeans treated them.
Placing Columbus in a place of responsibility for simply discovering the Americas would also be a faulty argument. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Europe - and the rest of the world - was in a time of rapid Geographical advancement, the Americas would have been discovered soon thereafter if not for Columbus. Columbus may have been among the least violent of fifteenth century explorers and the best suited to discover the Americas. His fairly passive and non-violence set a healthy start to American exploration. It is entirely possible that if another explorer was to find the Americas, he would have been a much stronger advocate of conquering the Indigenous peoples.
No historians have placed Columbus as the first explorer to pursue the idea of sailing west over what is now called the Atlantic Ocean. "In 1487, under a license from the king of Portugal, [Fernão Dulmo and João Estreito] presumably set sail to find the legendary Antilla ... said to be settled by Christian Bishops 'opposite' Portugal. Dulmo and Estreito were never heard from again." (Wilford, pg.7) Also Lorenzo Buonincontri theorized of the possibility of another continent.
The last reason that Columbus should not be put in a place of responsibility for American fatalities as a result of further exploration, is that Columbus and his crew have writings of generosity and kindness towards the American People. It has been written that Columbus, on more than one occasion, welcomed native traders and civilians on his ship for the sole purpose of giving gifts and showing kindness. Columbus was very just in his trading methods with the natives. He would not allow his crew to accept large amounts of crops and goods for their cheap manufactured goods. Columbus wrote in his journal, "I saw in this manner sixteen balls of cotton thread which weighed above twenty-five pounds, given for three Portuguese ceutis. This traffic I forbade, and suffered no one to take their cotton from them."(Columbus: Saturday, 13 October) Columbus also recorded this story his journal: "A small canoe with a single man, who came to barter some cotton arrived; some of the sailors finding him unwilling to go on board the vessel, jumped into the sea and took him. I was upon the quarter deck of my ship, and seeing the whole, sent for him, and gave him a red cap, put some glass beads upon his arms, and two hawk's bells upon his ears. I then ordered his canoe to be returned to him, and despatched him back to land." (Columbus: Monday, 15 October) Columbus said several times that he wanted to be friends with the Natives. He obviously cared for them in that he said he wanted them to become Christians.
The previous examples show that Columbus was an honest, godly man who wanted the best for all of mankind - both European and American. To charge him with millions of deaths would be ignorant - taking history out of context and not looking honestly at what factually happened. Columbus led American exploration in a non-violent way, acted as a positive example during the Age of Discovery. By refusing to conquer the natives, Columbus proved himself to be a revolutionary, a truly remarkable historical figure. Columbus was clearly not responsible for millions of deaths in the Americas.

Will someone proof this, show me areas of contradiction and unclarity and make sure everything makes sense to someone who hasn't researched it. I wrote and revised the majority of this paper a few hours past the time I normally go to bed, so it might be weak in spots. (Especially the end - I was tired and I suck at closing sentances)

Oh and if you want to make the language stronger that is fantastic too.

[nate95366]

Originally Posted by Gsus_Rawks

Christopher Columbus was an extremely influential and inspirational explorer whose somewhat unintentional discovery has sparked controversy on the sensitive issue of whom to place the responsibility for the death of millions of Native Americans upon.

You may want to enlighten us by telling us what class and at what level this paper is for. This opening line would be very impressive for a Jr. High or even early high-school piece, but would be a very clumsy read to a college prof or upper-level high school english teacher.

Originally Posted by Gsus_rawks

Columbus and The Age of Discovery

I would try for a title that was more indicative of what the paper is really about - this title is too general IMO.

In general, your organization could be stronger. You have far more "big ideas" than paragraphs, and that makes reading things a bit more work-like.

Originally Posted by Gsus_rawks

No historians have placed Columbus as the first explorer to pursue the idea of sailing west over what is now called the Atlantic Ocean. Two explorers with the same idea, Dulmo and Estreito, set sail decades before Columbus but never returned. Also Lorenzo Buonincontri theorized of the possibility of another continent.

Case in point. This sentence supports an idea that ends the paragraph previous to it, yet you use this sentence to start a new paragraph. This could be organized better.

General comments:

1) If this is a research paper, it expresses far to strong of an opinion (IMO).

2) If this is an opinion paper, it is (again IMO):
- superior work if written for Jr. High

- above average for early high school

- "B-" for later high school

- "Please re-write" if for college.

I think you got your point across, although you might do well to recognize that some of the things you cite could be looked at in many different ways. Things like:

Columbus said several times that he wanted to be friends with the Natives. He obviously cared for them in that he said he wanted them to become Christians. He also said that if the Americans simply recognized European authority by allowing them to preach, that he would no treat anyone cruelly.

Some might say that to "simply" recognize European authority isn't so simple from the Native American perspective, but you haven't included this viewpoint in your paper.

Nate

[comitatus1]

Originally Posted by Gsus_Rawks

Columbus and The Age of Discovery

Christopher Columbus was an extremely influential and inspirational explorer whose somewhat unintentional discovery has sparked controversy on the sensitive issue of whom to place the responsibility for the death of millions of Native Americans upon. Christopher Columbus is most definitely not the individual to hold responsible for the following three reasons: He did not directly kill millions of native americans or lead American exploration in a violent way, He was in an Age of Exploration where the world map was being rapidly uncovered and he treated the Native Americans in a friendly and non-hostile way. As history is uncovered, Columbus's innocence will be clearly revealed.

What are your three reasons here? Are they:

1. He did not directly kill native americans
2. He was in the Age of Exploration
3. His innocence will be revealed

???

I'm not sure what grade level you are at, but let me make this suggestion:

Be concise. This first paragraph is very wordy and this is the worst place to be so. Here is how I would rewrite what you have:

There are some people who think that Christopher Columbus is either directly or indirectly responsible for the genocide of millions of Native Americans. They could not be more incorrect in their conclusions. This is easily demonstrable by examining three aspects of Columbus' historical record. These are the political, religious and economic reasons that Columbus came to the New World. By examining these reasons, it will become clear the Columbus is innocent of any responsibility for what happened later.

Some ideas for political reasons: Did Columbus come for territorial gain? Your paper says he was just an explorer. Support that. Why did Columbus explore?

Some ideas for religious reasons: Columbus was religious? If so, did that influence the way he treated the Native Americans?

Some ideas for economic reasons: Did Columbus come for treasure? Slaves? Or just to trade? If he came for the first two reasons, this damages your claims. If for the third, it helps your claim.

Professors or teachers are very busy people and it takes a long time to grade papers. The more direct and concise you are, the better chance you have of making a good grade. You have the ingredients of a good paper here but you must now take the time to organize it so that your teacher can look at it and instantly see what you are trying to say and how you are supporting what you say.

Please take this as constructive criticism as you are obviously intelligent enough to write a high quality paper.. Good luck!

Chris

[bobthecockroach]

Some general ideas about the paper to make it stronger:

1. Give your paper a specific title


2. Avoid adjectives and adverbs which add nothing to the meaning of the sentence. Example: "Christopher Columbus was an extremely influential and inspirational explorer."


3. Don't use contractions (such as "don't").


4. Don't capitalize words that have no reason to be capitalized. Examples: "Indigenous," "Geographical."


5. Don't use words like "clearly" or "obviously."


6. Don't use uncertain language. Examples: "somewhat unintentional discovery," "it is entirely possible."


7. The first sentence of your first paragraph should introduce the issue you plan to discuss in a concise and interesting way. Right now, it is too long and too grammatically confusing to be powerful.


8. The last sentence of your first paragraph should state the thesis of your paper (the message you are trying to get across). Right now, it does not do that.

[Gsus_Rawks]

Originally Posted by nate95366

I would try for a title that was more indicative of what the paper is really about - this title is too general IMO.

In general, your organization could be stronger. You have far more "big ideas" than paragraphs, and that makes reading things a bit more work-like.

Case in point. This sentence supports an idea that ends the paragraph previous to it, yet you use this sentence to start a new paragraph. This could be organized better.

General comments:

1) If this is a research paper, it expresses far to strong of an opinion (IMO).

2) If this is an opinion paper, it is (again IMO):
- superior work if written for Jr. High

- above average for early high school

- "B-" for later high school

- "Please re-write" if for college.

I think you got your point across, although you might do well to recognize that some of the things you cite could be looked at in many different ways. Things like:

Some might say that to "simply" recognize European authority isn't so simple from the Native American perspective, but you haven't included this viewpoint in your paper.

Nate

I am a freshman in highschool, and I was assigned to prove that "Columbus is not responsible for millions of deaths". I don't know how I could prove that and sound neutral. I don't want to include any information that contradicts or "disproves" this topic.

[Gsus_Rawks]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Some general ideas about the paper to make it stronger:

1. Give your paper a specific title


2. Avoid adjectives and adverbs which add nothing to the meaning of the sentence. Example: "Christopher Columbus was an extremely influential and inspirational explorer."

I have to agree with these points, but don't you think that Columbus was more than just an influential explorer? How can I say that he is very influential without using "worthless" adjectives?

Don't use contractions (such as "don't").

Don't capitalize words that have no reason to be capitalized. Examples: "Indigenous," "Geographical."

I mistakingly did the former and have an awful habit of doing the Latter (See, I just did it.)

Don't use words like "clearly" or "obviously."

Don't use uncertain language. Examples: "somewhat unintentional discovery," "it is entirely possible."

The first sentence of your first paragraph should introduce the issue you plan to discuss in a concise and interesting way. Right now, it is too long and too grammatically confusing to be powerful.

The last sentence of your first paragraph should state the thesis of your paper (the message you are trying to get across). Right now, it does not do that.

Thanks.

[Lou#1RelientKfn]

Your writing is very good, but you need a few "tweeks" here and there. I looked at your public profile. I am also 14 years old and am home schooled. Therefore, I have had quite a bit of personal training. I think you need to lay off the "big words" and focus more on the style and structure of your writing. By no means am I saying big words are bad, but you need to focus, as I said, more on the style and structure of your writing. Make sure it is not confusing to any age of reader (and I don't mean a five year old). I hope you liked my editing and honestly hope you appreciate this paper (looking at my computer screen took a major toll on my eyes). Whew, what a long paper!!!

~Christopher Columbus: An Innocent Man~

Christopher Columbus was a vastly influential and inspirational explorer, whose rather unintentional discovery has sparked great controversy on the sensitive issue of upon whom to place the responsibility for the death of millions of Native Americans. He is believed to be innocent, in my opinion, for three reasons: He did not personally kill any Native Americans or lead any English explorations violently; he was in the Age of Exploration, which is when our world was still in the process of being mapped out; and also he treated the Native Americans with the utmost kindness. We now have historical documents of writings from Columbus and his men which state their generous and kind deeds toward the natives. Columbus wrote in a journal entry which was recorded on Saturday, October 13: "I saw in this manner sixteen balls of cotton thread which weighed above twenty-five pounds, given for three Portuguese ceutis. This traffic I forbade, and suffered no one to take their cotton from them." Columbus also recorded this story in his journal on Monday, October 15th: "A small canoe with a single man, who came to barter some cotton arrived; some of the sailors finding him unwilling to go on board the vessel, jumped into the sea and took him. I was upon the quarter deck of my ship, and seeing the whole, sent for him, and gave him a red cap, put some glass beads upon his arms, and two hawk's bells upon his ears. I then ordered his canoe to be returned to him, and despatched him back to land." As history is continually being uncovered, Columbus’ innocence, I believe, will be clearly revealed.

The responsibility of the constant deaths of the Native Americans in the years !( you fill this spot in)! lies in the hands of both warfare and disease; two issues which Columbus greatly frowned upon. I believe that Columbus’ reputation should be judged solely by his own actions- not by his believed actions. Columbus and his followers did not come in contact with a great number of the natives, therefore, it is un-logical to think that they would have spread a disease to the Americans. In the late 15th century, the Europeans could not comprehend how Columbus could carry a non-vital disease for which he was not diagnosed.

Columbus has also been accused of starting a war with the natives and conquering them. He had enslaved the Americans for economic and financial reasons, but this was believed by the Europeans, during the 15th and early 16th century, to be morally and ethically acceptable because they were unsure if they were humane. “Natives were considered subhuman. In fact, not until 45 years later did the Vatican under Pope Paul II issued a Papal Encyclical posting that the natives were rational beings with a soul” [Tirado]).

Christopher Columbus did not massacre the indigenous people or kill them for unjust reasons- the natives always, proverbially speaking, “fired the first shot.” His personal log tells of a particular event when the Europeans docked into port at North America. The Europeans started to trade with the natives when their chief boarded the European ship. He overheard a Portuguese sailor, while talking with another, joke about attacking the Indians. The ship’s dog took this as a cue to attack, proceeded to drag his master and kill the chief. The natives responded to this incident by massacring eight European sailors. Here is another startling example of Native American violence:
“[Columbus] discovered that the entire settlement of La Navidad had been massacred and the site burned to the ground. As they searched for any trace of their compatriots, the newcomers discovered a mass grave in which several Spaniards were buried. They discovered also that the village of Columbus’ good friend, Chief Guacanagari, was burned and destroyed. No one will ever know for sure what happened at La Navidad.” It is quite clear that the natives treated the Europeans with more hostility than the Europeans treated them.

I believe, placing Columbus in a place of responsibility for simply discovering the Americas would also be a faulty argument. During the 15th and 16th centuries, the world was in a time of rapid geographical advancement. The Americas would not have been discovered soon after if it had not been for Columbus. He may have been considered among the least violent of 15th century explorers and the best suited to discover the Americas. (Is this statement really necessary? Was Columbus really considered to be this? If you don’t know eliminate this statement. If you do, then why put “He may have been considered…”? put “He was considered…” ) Columbus’ disposition as a fairly passive and peaceful man, was a healthy and positive start to American exploration. We should be thankful for Columbus’ peaceful efforts to explore a better world. If another explorer had founded the Americas, he perhaps would have made a stronger advocate in conquering the natives.

Historians do not consider Columbus to be the first explorer to pursue the idea of sailing west over, what is not called, the Atlantic Ocean. Two explorers with the identical idea, Dulmo and Estreito, set sail several years before Columbus did. They never returned. Also, Lorenzo Buonicontri considered the possibility of another continent.

I believe Columbus to have been an honest, godly man who wanted the best for all of mankind - both European and American. To charge him with millions of deaths would be unreasonable; it would be taking history out of its context and not looking honestly at what factually happened. Christopher Columbus was a revolutionary, a truly remarkable and historical figure. He founded the United States of America, which is today, one of the most prosperous nations living.

[bobthecockroach]

Ok, you have some good ideas in that proof-reading, but...

Never EVER say "I believe" or "in my opinion" unless the assignment specifically asks, "What do you believe," or, "What is your opinion?" EVER. If you didn't believe it, you wouldn't have written it. Saying "I believe" comes across as saying, "This may be wrong, so I'm telling you it's just an opinion so you can't criticize me."

You also have way too much information in your opening paragraph.

I don't mean to be critical. After all, you took the time to go through the whole paper. I'm sure your ideas will be helpful.

[Lou#1RelientKfn]

That is the point: I don't know if this guy's assignment is supposed to be based on his opinion. Obviously if he did not "believe it" he would not write it. All he asked was for someone to proof-read his paper- that's what I did. Besides, allot of his statements were based on his opinion. Why shouldn't you put "in my opinion" in the contents of a report? What is wrong with that? Why didn't you proof-read the paper?

Your from Louisiana? So am I!!! Cool.

[Lou#1RelientKfn]

Why do you say that I have "way too much information in your opening paragraph"? It should all piece together because practically all of it states how kind Columbus was to the natives. How could I divide it or eliminate portions?

[Gsus_Rawks]

I didn't pick my assignment, it was assigned. It not supposed to be first person.

I agree with Bob, saying "in my opinion" in a paper is weak and ineffective.

[Lou#1RelientKfn]

How so? If you think so (it's your paper) then just delete all of the "in my opinions."

[Insane Drummer]

I hope I don't come off too negative here... I am going to treat this alot like I treat my own papers.



First off, I think the paper would be better with a catchier opening line. Diving directly into "Christopher Columbus..." seems a little bland too me.

"Christopher Columbus was an extremely influential and inspirational explorer whose somewhat unintentional discovery has sparked controversy on the sensitive issue of whom to place the responsibility for the death of millions of
Native Americans upon."

"Of whom to place... upon." Is not very effective, one it is PASSIVE (the enemy of good historical writing). "To place the responsibility... upon" is basically saying the same thing as who "to blame". "Blame" = active, strong, definite.

Also I think the discovery, what this sentence is really about, should be more central. "whose discovery" makes it sound like a side dish to "EXTREMELY influential and inspirational explorer."

Also I would prefer to see what his discovery is explained IE Discovery of the American landmass/continent/etc. Even though everyone knows what Columbus found, history papers are generally better if say a Martian could come down and read them, and never read anymore on topic and still make sense of it.

" Christopher Columbus is most definitely not the individual to hold responsible for the following three reasons: He did not directly kill millions of native americans or lead American exploration in a violent way, He was in an Age of Exploration where the world map was being rapidly uncovered and he treated the Native Americans in a friendly and non-hostile way."

"most definitely" is a little too coversational for a history paper. Also, I am a little confused what your second point is all about. I also think that uncovering the world map is an odd metaphor.

"As history is uncovered, Columbus's innocence will be clearly revealed."

This seems to claim that you or someone else has "uncovered" new historical documents to change the perception of Columbus. Also will be clearly revealed seems to be an internal reference to the work you are writing. Internal references are rarely a good idea.

"The death of Natives in the Americas was largely the result of two factors, warfare and disease, both of which Columbus frowned upon."

"Natives in the America" why not "Native Americans"? it says the same thing, in half the words.

I would prefer an adjective or something somewhere in here. It seems odd. "The death of Natives..." seems to imply either the entire wipeout "THE" death of the natives, or that before Columbus came, Natives never died. Maybe something along the lines of "The large number of deaths among the Native Americans that resulted from Columbus' discovery were largely caused by two factors: warfare and disease."

Do you really need to specifiy that Columbus frowned upon disease?

"It is only reasonable that Columbus should be held responsible solely for his own actions. What other explorers did with Columbus's discovery is their responsibility, just as the inventor of the automobile would never be reasonably charged with all of the deaths as a result of car accidents."

Not too much to say here. Although "it is only reasonable" in a persuasive paper is generally a bad idea. It majorly puts off anyone who doesn't entirely agree with you.

"Columbus and his crew did not even come in contact with millions of people, therefore they could have not possibly have spread disease or physically killed millions."

Well, killed no, spread disease to... possible. Diseases can be spread from Native to Native. Columbus infects 5 natives, each native infects 5... in a year you have a lot of infected natives. I would think of some other way to make this point.

"Likewise, Columbus's spread of disease was not deliberate, in the late 15th century, no European could understand how Columbus could carry a disease that he did not show symptoms for - especially one that would be fatal to the Indigenous peoples."

All generalizations are false. "No European" is a very bold claim to make. Rarely do I like weakening the strength of a statement, but I think this is a case where that is needed. There are other ways of saying this thought that don't beg someone to find "AHA! This guy said this in 14XX... YOU ARE WRONG!" like that statement does

Also of note, in historical writing centuries are generally fully written out.

"Therefore Columbus cannot be held responsible for the unintentional spread of the diseases he unknowingly carried."

I would place a "that" before "he".

"Additionally, Columbus has been accused of starting warfare and being a conquerer. Columbus did no such thing. Other than enslaving the Americans for economic and financial reasons, (Which was morally and ethically acceptable in the fifteenth ad early sixteenth century, as Europeans were unsure of the humanity of them. "Natives were considered subhuman. In fact, not until 45 years later did the Vatican under Pope Paul II issued an Papal Encyclical positing that the natives were rational beings with a soul."[Tirado]) he didn't even treat the Natives in a hostile way."

Too much paraenthetical information. If you want to include that thought, give it a full sentence. Also, you would idealy show that enslaving natives didn't cause war. His reasons arn't the issue, the effect of his enslaving the natives is. With all the attention Columbus gave to the benign nature of the natives in his letters ("they have no iron or steel weapons, nor are they fitted to use them" why? because they are "marvelously timorous" Columbus to Luis de Santangel). I am inclined to wonder, what caused them to turn hostile?

"Columbus did not massacre the Indigenous peoples or kill them for an unjust reason - the Americans always started the bloodshed. Columbus's log tells of an event where the Europeans came into port and started to trade with the Natives. The Native's chief boarded the ship and a Portuguese sailer - while talking to another sailor - made a joke about "attacking" the Indians, the dog took that as a cue that he was to attack and proceeded to drag his master and kill the chief. The Indians responded to this accident by massacring eight European sailors."

I would find it hard to claim the Indians acted unjustly here.

" Another startling example of American violence is this:
"[Columbus] discovered that the entire settlement of La Navidad had been massacred and the site burned to the ground. As they searched for any trace of their compatriots, the newcomers discovered a mass grave in which several Spaniards were buried. They discovered also that the village of Columbus’ good friend, Chief Guacanagarí, was burned and destroyed. No one will ever know for sure what happened at La Navidad"."

Now this example seems like it is a useful one in proving your point. But, to mkae it alot stronger, before introducing a brand new settlement "La Navidad" I would at least like to have a brief introduction of where, what, when, why this settlement was... settled or who this "Chief Guancanagari" was. It would really help your point if you explained more why these places and people were important.

A stylistic note, putting "an example of this is..." then a large chunk of undigested (and here uncited) quations is a generally bad idea. I would like to see direct quotations worked more into your own sentance and thought structure. You need to say something like, another example of American violence WAS (not the IS you are using, stay rooted in the past) the attack on the La Navidad settlement.

"Clearly the Natives treated the Europeans with more hostility than the Europeans treated them."

But we have to keep in mind, whose land and territory this was. We are talking about the NATIVES here. Do they not have some right to defend their land?

"Placing Columbus in a place of responsibility for simply discovering the Americas would also be a faulty argument. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Europe - and the rest of the world - was in a time of rapid Geographical advancement, the Americas would have been discovered soon thereafter if not for Columbus.
"Columbus may have been among the least violent of fifteenth century explorers and the best suited to discover the Americas. His fairly passive and non-violence set a healthy start to American exploration. It is entirely possible that if another explorer was to find the Americas, he would have been a much stronger advocate of conquering the Indigenous peoples."

Not too much to say here.

"No historians have placed Columbus as the first explorer to pursue the idea of sailing west over what is now called the Atlantic Ocean."

And you have read the works of every historian? I don't think you can say that.

"Two explorers with the same idea, Dulmo and Estreito, set sail decades before Columbus but never returned. Also Lorenzo Buonincontri theorized of the possibility of another continent.
The last reason that Columbus should not be put in a place of responsibility for American fatalities as a result of further exploration, is that Columbus and his crew have writings of generosity and kindness towards the American People."

Not much here.

"It has been written that Columbus, on more than one occasion, welcomed native traders and civilians on his ship for the sole purpose of giving gifts and showing kindness."

For the purpose of? Was this true kindness or a gesture intented to gain the trust of natives and then to exploit them (as happened alot later in the Americas).

"Columbus was very justin his trading methods with the natives, he would not allow his crew to accept large amounts of crops and goods their cheap manufactured goods. Columbus wrote in his journal, "I saw in this manner sixteen balls of cotton thread which weighed above twenty-five pounds, given for three Portuguese ceutis. This traffic I forbade, and suffered no one to take their cotton from them."(Columbus Saturday, 13 October) Columbus also recorded this story his journal: "A small canoe with a single man, who came to barter some cotton arrived; some of the sailors finding him unwilling to go on board the vessel, jumped into the sea and took him. I was upon the quarter deck of my ship, and seeing the whole, sent for him, and gave him a red cap, put some glass beads upon his arms, and two hawk's bells upon his ears. I then ordered his canoe to be returned to him, and despatched him back to land." (Columbus Monday, 15 October) Columbus said several times that he wanted to be friends with the Natives."

This is a good use of primary source examples to further a point. But also watch out for "Columbus said"s. Columbus wasn't likely to write down "So I tried to establish contact for the sake of exploiting natives for my own benefit" even if that is what he had planned. This is why "I forbade (action) these trading practices" is alot stronger than "i liked the Indians."

"He obviously cared for them in that he said he wanted them to become Christians."

This is touchy subject as to his motive in this. Also, another Columbus said.

"He also said that if the Americans simply recognized European authority by allowing them to preach, that he would no treat anyone cruelly."

Basically claiming he can come into your land, and expect you to bend to his will? This is a little confusing to me as a sign of his benevolance.

"Columbus was clearly an honest, godly man who wanted the best for all of mankind - both European and American."

I would argue that Europe was formost in his mind. This is a bit idealized.

"To charge him with millions of deaths would be ignorant - taking history out of context and not looking honestly at what factually happened. Columbus led American exploration in a non-violent way, acted as a good example during the Age of Discovery and refused conquer the natives. Columbus was a revolutionary, a truly remarkable historical figure. Columbus was clearly not responsible for millions of deaths in the Americas."

Also, it would help if you picked one title for Native Americans. You use "Natives" "Native Americans" "Indians" "Americans" and "Indigenous peoples"

Indians are typically hard to find a good name for. But if you use one consistantly, it makes the paper flow better.

The general ideas seem good, and with a proof read or two you could improve the language. Just think about my ideas (you don't have to necessarily adopt them)

[Insane Drummer]

I might not have made this clear in my first post. But when I question your use of an event or a quote. I am not trying to make a blanket "that is wrong" statement, I really don't know enough about these events to say that. What I am really looking for is you to convince me. I wasn't entirely convinced by the way some information was presented.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Lou#1RelientKfn

How so?

Because it defeats the purpose of the paper. IF the paper assignment is to write about your opinions or beliefs, then the goal of the paper in to explain your opinions and beliefs. If the paper assignment is ANYTHING else, then the goal is NOT to share your opinions and beliefs, it is to cover the topic of the paper. Here, presumably, the topic is proving that Columbus is not responsible for deaths of millions of Americans. The goal of the paper then is to prove that. How you feel about it is completely irrelevent to the point of the paper.

When writing a paper, you should always keep your thesis clearly in mind.

The best way to do this is to present your thesis clearly and succinctly in the first paragraph. Your first sentence needs to do two things: present the topic and make the topic interesting.

Right now, his first sentence presents the topic but does not make it particularly interesting. Yours is roughly the same in that regard.

The last sentence in your first paragraph is perhaps the most important sentence in your paper. It needs to clearly describe exactly what point you intend to make with your paper. Both his original sentence and your revision fail to do this. They are both about what will be revealed in future discoveries about Christopher Columbus. The problem is that this is neither the paper topic nor an issue on which you are qualified to report. A better, nevertheless oversimplified, final sentence to the first paragraph would be, "Christopher Columbus is not responsible for the deaths of millions of Americans."

The rest of your first paragraph--the part in between the first and last sentence sentences--should essentially give an overview of your paper. Generally, I spent 30 minutes at least on my first paragraph and then use it as an outline for the rest of my paper. With short papers, I find that each sentence of the opening paragraph can usually correspond with one or two paragraphs of the paper. This gives the reader an idea of where you're going with the paper.

Stylistically, the first paragraph should be written in such a way that it holds the readers interest. One of the best ways to do this--and one of the best ways to improve your writing overall--is to be absolutely confident in what you are saying. This is one of the reasons why it is so important not to say "in my opinion" or "maybe" or "perhaps." If you don't KNOW it's true, you probably shouldn't be writing it UNLESS the paper assignment specifically asks you to speculate about things you don't know.

As for the content of the first paragraph, it should be focus on outline and thesis, not on information. With that in mind, you should only use quotes in your opening paragraph if they help define the topic or grab the readers interest.

The content of your paper as a whole should follow neatly from your opening paragraph. Each paragraph should focus on one thing. This thing--whatever it is--should be presented in the opening sentence and summarized in the final one. Again, the last sentence of a paragraph is almost always the most important one.

The final paragraph should recap the material from the paper, re-explain how it fits together, and re-present the thesis. Here is where his original is much better than your revision. Your final sentence is: "He founded the United States of America, which is today, one of the most prosperous nations living." That sentence has almost nothing to do with the paper. Consider his final sentence: "Columbus was clearly not responsible for millions of deaths in the Americas." That sentence states the thesis (minus the word "clearly") quite powerfully and confidently. Your last words will stick in the minds of your readers the best. You should always leave them thinking about what it is you are trying to say in your paper.

For a few examples of what I'm saying, let's consider one of my favorite "papers," The Communist Manifesto.

First line:
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

If that doesn't catch your attention, I don't know what will. Marx is making a radical claim that you immediately want to see just how he intends to back it up. It also presents in a mere 13 words the fundamental concepts of Marx's view of society: it is based on history, and that history is based on class struggle.

Last line of first section (in a work this long, think in sections rather than paragraphs):
"Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat."

Since The Manifesto is explanatory and isn't really trying to make a point (at least not yet), this paragraph does exactly what it should. It grabs the readers attention and focuses it on exactly what it should be focused on: the class conflict between the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. It also does so in an interesting way, almost as if he was announcing a boxing match, with the two fighters facing off before the match.

Last lines of the first chapter:
"What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."

Last lines of the work:
"Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Working Men of All Countries, Unite!"

There is power behind these words. Marx knows what he wants to say, and he's not afraid to say it. That's the attitude you need to take toward writing papers. First, you need to absolutely KNOW what you're talking about. Then, you need to say it in a meaningful, interesting, and POWERFUL way.

Never act like you don't know what you're talking about by saying "maybe" or "perhaps" (unless there simply is no way to know, and you are speculating for the purpose of speculating).

Never downplay what you are saying by calling it mere opinion.

Never put the focus on anything but your topic.

(Look how neatly I tied this post together by talking about focus--directly or indirectly--in both the first and last sentences. )