380

submitted 9 months ago by voodooattack@lemmy.world to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] lily33@lemm.ee 131 points 9 months ago

Well, Columbus himself didn't conquer much. He established a few settlement, but the real conquering was done by others.

More accurate comparison would be:

Describe Hernan Cortez in one word.

(GPT-4) Conquistador

[-] voodooattack@lemmy.world 32 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yet they both committed atrocities (torture, murder, rape and god knows what else) and only one is being hailed as “explorer”.

Edit: I’m not saying we should hail Genghis Khan as an explorer, I’m saying that Christopher Columbus should be deplored as a murderer and a marauder, not praised as an explorer.

[-] TheControlled@lemmy.world 37 points 9 months ago

Being a murderer and explorer are not mutually exclusive. If ChatGPT said "Murderer" one might presume that he was simply a local killer, captured by the law, and convicted a la Ted Bundy. Explorer is a more appropriate title for Columbus, like "Dictator" is likely more appropriate than "Murderer" for Hitler. Murderer, sadly, is too commonplace for people of their evil.

[-] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 9 months ago

For real. Name the worst serial killer you know, and Columbus was probably worse than that. It sickens me to read about it.

[-] june@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Why do we assume ‘explorer’ has a positive moral implication?

To me, looking through all of history, exploration has largely been a net negative to humanity. Modern day exploration isn’t terribly far off. The more we explore the ocean the more we strip it of resources. The more we explore space the more we look to exploit it for wealth.

Explorers are enablers of worse people at best.