News Reports Re: Columbus being Jewish --> Any significance?

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

A couple of things:  Yes, like many famous historical figures, Cristobal Colon has become a subject of "controversy," to be judged based upon very recent moral and ethical norms.  This ignores the obvious fact that those historical figures lived at a time when life was "nasty, brutish, and short," and they were integral parts of that bestial world.

The Book of Mormon does speak of Colon's discoveries leading to the depredations of the Gentiles upon the indigenous peoples of the New World (I Ne 13:14).  A demographic and cultural disaster, no doubt.

The upshot is ironic, if it is true that Colon was a Sephardic converso.  Because it is also true that Lehi was a member of the Israelite tribe of Manasseh, and that Mulek was a member of the royal family of the tribe of Judah, a descendant of David.  The BofM makes such Israelite remnants of great significance, as does the Bible.  It is fashionable today to deny all such significance, thus ignoring both genetics and Holy Writ.

The genetics don't mean much without the covenants or if they are broken. The house of Israel and the Gentiles are quite interdependent, and I think this is most significant, as neither can be saved without each other according to the Book of Mormon and other prophecies.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

The Book of Mormon has a verse that may be a prophecy about Columbus, though more likely imo like the others said above, a symbolic figure.  Because some leaders have identified the figure as Columbus, some Saints have had an interest in him in the past. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/13?lang=eng#p33

 

It is clearly talking about Leif Erikson.

Or better yet, Zheng He.

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A couple of things:  Yes, like many famous historical figures, Cristobal Colon has become a subject of "controversy," to be judged based upon very recent moral and ethical norms.  This ignores the obvious fact that those historical figures lived at a time when life was "nasty, brutish, and short," and they were integral parts of that bestial world.

It is still “nasty, brutish, and short” but we don’t give everyone today a pass.

Columbus was bad by the standards of his day. In 1499 Columbus was arrested and brought back to Spain because he was too cruel as a governor and flouted Spanish law in doing so. That is a very high bar. When you offend the sensibilities of the Spanish monarchy of the 15th century in your cruelty you are doing some pretty heinous things (and he was). He was also after private wealth in this expedition. The deal he struck with Spanish royalty to get a percentage on everything makes that clear.

He was brave and bold obviously. He was well educated and a skilled navigator. He was also a petty tyrant. Should he be wiped from the pages of history? No, what he did was important and should be studied. Should he be venerated and commemorated with statues and celebrations? No. There is no value in idolizing Columbus as some kind of exemplar.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Was columbus not that guy from italy who discoverd America for the first time? 

Indeed.

For the view of Columbus when I was a teen:

Quote

In 1492, in harmony with the Lord’s statement heretofore quoted, “that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord” (2 Ne. 1:6), Columbus was divinely led to America.

Away back between 590 and 600 years b.c., Nephi, looking in vision down the stream of time, “beheld a man among the Gentiles [that is, among the nations of Europe], who was separated from [this promised land] by the many waters; and I beheld,” said he, “the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto … the promised land.

“And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth … upon the many waters.

“And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise.” (1 Ne. 13:12–14.)

Columbus himself corroborated the fact that he was divinely led to this land.

“In the royal presence of Isabella, Irving [his biographer] says: ‘He unfolded his plans with eloquence and zeal for he felt himself, as he afterwards declared, kindled as with a fire from on high, and considered himself the agent chosen of heaven to accomplish the grand design. …

“His son Fernando, in the biography of his father quotes him as saying on one occasion: ‘God gave me the faith and afterwards the courage so that I was quite willing to undertake the journey.’

“And the will of Columbus reads:

“‘In the name of the … holy trinity, who inspired me with the idea and afterwards made it perfectly clear to me that I could navigate and go to the Indies from Spain, by traversing the ocean westward.’” (Nephi Lowell Morris, Prophecies of Joseph Smith and Their Fulfillment, Deseret Book, 1945, pp. 289, 294–95; italics added.)

Because Columbus was led, we are here in this choice land.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1975/10/americas-destiny?lang=eng#p60

Not sure if you know this or not (I don’t know holidays of unique to your country), the US celebrates Columbus Day on the second Monday in October.  It became a federal holiday in 1968.  Used to be a big day (Oct 12) when I was in elementary school. After that, the only thing I remember is they had big sales where Mom would want me to go shopping for clothes with her (I hated, hated shopping)…except for the Columbus Day Parade. That is still going strong.  I just know of New York’s as we would watch it on TV.  For many it is more about celebrating their Italian heritage like St. Patrick’s Day is celebrating the Irish.  Oktoberfest celebrates German heritage. 

Edited October 15, 2024 by Calm

[Dario_M]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Indeed.

For the view of Columbus when I was a teen:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1975/10/americas-destiny?lang=eng#p60

That's so interesting. That an Italian made the discovery. Though... i'm really happy that the US from today speaks English and not the Italian language. The English language sounds way more beautiful.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is still “nasty, brutish, and short” but we don’t give everyone today a pass.

Columbus was bad by the standards of his day. In 1499 Columbus was arrested and brought back to Spain because he was too cruel as a governor and flouted Spanish law in doing so. That is a very high bar. When you offend the sensibilities of the Spanish monarchy of the 15th century in your cruelty you are doing some pretty heinous things (and he was). He was also after private wealth in this expedition. The deal he struck with Spanish royalty to get a percentage on everything makes that clear.

He was brave and bold obviously. He was well educated and a skilled navigator. He was also a petty tyrant. Should he be wiped from the pages of history? No, what he did was important and should be studied. Should he be venerated and commemorated with statues and celebrations? No. There is no value in idolizing Columbus as some kind of exemplar.

Yep, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.  Except that today most of humanity lives like kings, has good food, medical care, and long life.  The exception proves the rule.  Of course when super AI takes over in a few years and exterminates us as a dangerous infestation, it may look very different.  Meantime, eat, drink, and be merry, Nehor.

Interesting how God has worked so closely with tyrants, using them for His own ends.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

The genetics don't mean much without the covenants or if they are broken. The house of Israel and the Gentiles are quite interdependent, and I think this is most significant, as neither can be saved without each other according to the Book of Mormon and other prophecies.

The Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional, which means that it is predictive -- regardless of the bad behavior of the children of the covenant.  The Jews believe that God saves by grace, not by works.  You are thinking of the conditional covenants of the BofM.  Read Romans 11.

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yep, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.  Except that today most of humanity lives like kings, has good food, medical care, and long life.  The exception proves the rule.  Of course when super AI takes over in a few years and exterminates us as a dangerous infestation, it may look very different.  Meantime, eat, drink, and be merry, Nehor.

Interesting how God has worked so closely with tyrants, using them for His own ends.

If you take the Bible literally God loves using tyrants. Messing with pharoah to make the exodus more exciting. In the Book of Isaiah the surrounding nations are tools of God’s wrath to convince Israel and Judah to repent with lots of murder. Same with the Lamanites.

God loves waving a big scary stick around to keep everyone in line. Seems like it is his favorite motivational technique.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Except that today most of humanity lives like kings, has good food, medical care, and long life. 

Still 25% have some food insecurity according to the UN. I don’t know if that is the lowest in history percentage wise,  but if one takes the absolute number that makes around 2 billion—which as an aside the world hit in total population in 1927 (facts supplied by Alexa, so blame her if I am off and just accept the reasoning  )—that is a massive amount of people who are not living like kings, even in ancient times (unless they were kings of crappy nations).

OTOH, Alexa also says more than half of humanity are not covered by essential health services, but even minimal health care nowadays must be better than when they were giving mercury as a medicine and doing surgery without anesthetic.

 

Edited October 16, 2024 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Still 25% have some food insecurity according to the UN. I don’t know if that is the lowest in history percentage wise,  but if one takes the absolute number that makes around 2 billion—which as an aside the world hit in total population in 1927 (facts supplied by Alexa, so blame her if I am off and just accept the reasoning  )—that is a massive amount of people who are not living like kings, even in ancient times (unless they were kings of crappy nations).

OTOH, Alexa also says more than half of humanity are not covered by essential health services, but even minimal health care nowadays must be better than when they were giving mercury as a medicine and doing surgery without anesthetic.

A lot of charitable organizations have been doing a great deal to provide clean water, power, internet links in the boondocks, etc., for many years and that does make quite a difference.  Training and educating many of those remote people is also a high priority.  Moreover, if we don't do all that, they will all come here.  Goes together with preaching the Gospel worldwide.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you take the Bible literally God loves using tyrants. Messing with pharoah to make the exodus more exciting. In the Book of Isaiah the surrounding nations are tools of God’s wrath to convince Israel and Judah to repent with lots of murder. Same with the Lamanites.

God loves waving a big scary stick around to keep everyone in line. Seems like it is his favorite motivational technique.

Yep, it's like herding cats.  A divina comedia.  I recall visiting with a distant relative of mine as he lay dying in an old folks home (Pilgrim Haven) in Palo Alto in 1964.  He was a retired Methodist minister like my grandad.  He told me there that he did not like the God of the OT.  Too violent for him.  What I did not realize at the time, but learned much later, was that God is dealing with humans as they actually are, not as we would wish them to be.  The Bible is merely a vehicle by which we explain such matters to each other.  Or, as Jordan Peterson said recently:

Quote

…there are patterns in things, deep patterns, deep recurring patterns, you know, human nature, the fact that we're human: That the humanity itself is a recurring pattern.  … if you read the story of Adam and Eve, it's so true that it applies to everyone always, and mere literal truth can't do that, and we don't have a good language as scientists, let's say as psychologists, or even as citizens, we don't have a good language for that kind of Truth.   *  *  *

…we need poetry and drama and literature; we need that whole domain; so we could call that the “literary domain” and …the religious domain is at the base of the literary domain, and as literature gets deeper it becomes more and more like religious writing, …the sense of profound engagement that the most profound literature produces is what constitutes the religious, and that's a domain of experience.  Peterson, “What the Atheists Tend to Miss,” Jordan B Peterson Clips, Oct 17, 2023, online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s47l1AehVvo 

 

Edited October 16, 2024 by Robert F. Smith

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional, which means that it is predictive -- regardless of the bad behavior of the children of the covenant.  The Jews believe that God saves by grace, not by works.  You are thinking of the conditional covenants of the BofM.  Read Romans 11.

I am thinking of both; the Abrahamic covenant is broader than the house of Israel bloodlines. The "seed" has both literal and symbolic meaning (Abraham 2): physical (of the body), adoptive (of and by grace) and spiritual (rebirth by and into the Priesthood). And Adam first received the covenant, and passed it along (e.g., D&C 107:32, 53-57).

Whatever significance we place on being born via the blood of Israel relies on the Abrahamic covenant that preceded it, which is an outgrowth, or relies on, Adam's blessing that long preceded that and was reiterated through the other patriarchs (the Covenant with "capital C"). We are in a dispensation where the work of the Lord is packaged in terms of the covenant with Israel (and Abraham) as our convenient, relatable reference point (and the promises to the Gentiles -- had to work that in there!).

Patriarchal blessings remind those who are born of the lineage of Israel that they have a particular foreordained role to understand and act upon (which they may figure out to the tribal level). Whenever adoption or Abraham might be mentioned it reminds the gentiles (who have already been adopted with baptism) of their role in the foreordained promises to them. All receive an inheritance, whether by lineage or adoption.

This is why I think it doesn't matter whether "Cristoforo ben Domenico" was a Sephardic Jew or not.  It may matter to some for personal reasons, but I don't think it is essential for maintaining divine cohesiveness in the plan and Book of Mormon prophecy. That he was born, foreordained and foreseen (assuming that is him in the Book of Mormon, which I find to be a perfectly reasonable thing to believe) of course, were. All the families and nations of the earth are blessed by the fulfillment of this Book of Mormon prophecy as Gentiles and remnants of the house of Israel alike realize the promises and covenants as the case may be.

Edited October 16, 2024 by CV75

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yep, it's like herding cats.  A divina comedia.  I recall visiting with a distant relative of mine as he lay dying in an old folks home (Pilgrim Haven) in Palo Alto in 1964.  He was a retired Methodist minister like my grandad.  He told me there that he did not like the God of the OT.  Too violent for him.  What I did not realize at the time, but learned much later, was that God is dealing with humans as they actually are, not as we would wish them to be. 

I didn’t mean my comment to be supportive. I agree with your relative. Also God meeting us as we are is a bit of a farce since God created us. If God disapproves of the human body’s drives and aggressions and the like God should have designed us better.

The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist is worried the optimist is right.

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Bible is merely a vehicle by which we explain such matters to each other.  Or, as Jordan Peterson said recently:

Others have said it much better than Jordan Peterson. He is clumsily trying to describe the sublime. Peterson also spends way too much time with Jung.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Still 25% have some food insecurity according to the UN. I don’t know if that is the lowest in history percentage wise,  but if one takes the absolute number that makes around 2 billion—which as an aside the world hit in total population in 1927 (facts supplied by Alexa, so blame her if I am off and just accept the reasoning  )—that is a massive amount of people who are not living like kings, even in ancient times (unless they were kings of crappy nations).

OTOH, Alexa also says more than half of humanity are not covered by essential health services, but even minimal health care nowadays must be better than when they were giving mercury as a medicine and doing surgery without anesthetic.

That is probably the lowest it has been since at least the agricultural revolution. It is hard to extrapolate what food insecurity looks like in a worldwide hunter-gatherer culture. I imagine it depends on population. Premodern subsistence farmers were perpetually food insecure and they made up 80% or more of the population of virtually every premodern agrarian culture.

[let’s roll]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I didn’t mean my comment to be supportive. I agree with your relative. Also God meeting us as we are is a bit of a farce since God created us. If God disapproves of the human body’s drives and aggressions and the like God should have designed us better.

God is love.  God is not logic, at least not the logic of the finite mind focused on mortality.

My experience has been that my soul is better nurtured as I spend more time looking for God’s love and less time trying to use my 147 IQ to explain the spiritual aspects of mortality…and now, and forever more, it’s all about the spiritual.

[ksfisher]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If God disapproves of the human body’s drives and aggressions and the like God should have designed us better.

So if I act on those God given drives and aggressions can I blame Him?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

So if I act on those God given drives and aggressions can I blame Him?

Do you give God credit when people rise above such things? When good things happen? If She gets credit for the good in the world, why is it unreasonable to blame Her for the bad in the world as well? When people fail to rise above aggression and base instinct?

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

So if I act on those God given drives and aggressions can I blame Him?

Yeah. God is punishing Satan and his flock for tempting people to do evil. If God does the same thing indirectly by making a body with those urges…….what is the difference?

If I designed robots with the urge to kill humans but the ability to override that urge I doubt I could justify myself.

[LoudmouthMormon]

16 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

19 hours ago, ksfisher said:

So if I act on those God given drives and aggressions can I blame Him?

Do you give God credit when people rise above such things?

I give God credit when I have pulled on my spiritual connection with Him to rise above things.  My prayers are full of "please help me find the maturity/discipline/desire to" do good things.  When I find some has unexpectedly been dropped on me, I'm grateful.  Whether it was enough or not, whether I found it on my own or not, whatever my actions ended up being, I'm grateful for the ride. 

 

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If I designed robots with the urge to kill humans but the ability to override that urge I doubt I could justify myself.

Yeah, but a better analogy would be if you are an ancient robot of immense complexity, designing simpler robots that you love with the urge to kill each other but the ability to override.  And the ability to increase in complexity.   You're looking for your world to be full of robots growing up to be like you, and you want to ensure they're the good ones.

Edited October 17, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/16/2024 at 10:11 AM, The Nehor said:

............ God meeting us as we are is a bit of a farce since God created us. If God disapproves of the human body’s drives and aggressions and the like God should have designed us better.

That is a valid critique only if you are an adherent to the normative Judeo-Christian view that God is "other," the only Necessary Being, outside space & time, the First Uncaused Cause, and everything else merely Contingent (which means that everything is predetermined, no free will, etc.).

Anyone who sees humans as having Necessary Being, just like God, and being the genus and species of God, will naturally take a very different view.  That is the true heresy of Latter-day Saint theology.

On 10/16/2024 at 10:11 AM, The Nehor said:

The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist is worried the optimist is right.

Others have said it much better than Jordan Peterson. He is clumsily trying to describe the sublime. Peterson also spends way too much time with Jung.

Peterson was speaking extemporaneously, not writing.

Mythographer Joseph Campbell also loved Jung.  Got a lot of mileage from him.  I loved attending Campbell's off-the-cuff illustrated lectures in Kansas City many years ago.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/16/2024 at 6:44 AM, CV75 said:

I am thinking of both; the Abrahamic covenant is broader than the house of Israel bloodlines. The "seed" has both literal and symbolic meaning (Abraham 2): physical (of the body), adoptive (of and by grace) and spiritual (rebirth by and into the Priesthood). And Adam first received the covenant, and passed it along (e.g., D&C 107:32, 53-57).

Whatever significance we place on being born via the blood of Israel relies on the Abrahamic covenant that preceded it, which is an outgrowth, or relies on, Adam's blessing that long preceded that and was reiterated through the other patriarchs (the Covenant with "capital C"). We are in a dispensation where the work of the Lord is packaged in terms of the covenant with Israel (and Abraham) as our convenient, relatable reference point (and the promises to the Gentiles -- had to work that in there!).

Patriarchal blessings remind those who are born of the lineage of Israel that they have a particular foreordained role to understand and act upon (which they may figure out to the tribal level). Whenever adoption or Abraham might be mentioned it reminds the gentiles (who have already been adopted with baptism) of their role in the foreordained promises to them. All receive an inheritance, whether by lineage or adoption.

............... All the families and nations of the earth are blessed by the fulfillment of this Book of Mormon prophecy as Gentiles and remnants of the house of Israel alike realize the promises and covenants as the case may be.

The standard conditional covenant of the BofM (obey and prosper), as well as the Laws of Moses, are limited and time-born.  The Abrahamic Covenant, which gets repeated in the Book of Abraham, is permanent, and everyone on Earth gets blessed by it due to the actions of the Savior, but it does in no sense erase the stark difference between Israel and the Gentiles, which is a stark difference emphasized by Paul in Romans 11 and by Zenos in Jacob 5.  The foreign branches are only temporarily grafted in, to be replaced by the natural branches at the end-time, natural branches which were hidden in another part of the vineyard.  Joseph did not have Orson Hyde dedicate the Holy Land in 1841 to the Gathering of the Jews as a joke.  It is integral to the end-time.  We have seen the plain fulfillment in our lifetimes.  No one replaces the Jews.  No one replaces Israel.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The standard conditional covenant of the BofM (obey and prosper), as well as the Laws of Moses, are limited and time-born.  The Abrahamic Covenant, which gets repeated in the Book of Abraham, is permanent, and everyone on Earth gets blessed by it due to the actions of the Savior, but it does in no sense erase the stark difference between Israel and the Gentiles, which is a stark difference emphasized by Paul in Romans 11 and by Zenos in Jacob 5.  The foreign branches are only temporarily grafted in, to be replaced by the natural branches at the end-time, natural branches which were hidden in another part of the vineyard.  Joseph did not have Orson Hyde dedicate the Holy Land in 1841 to the Gathering of the Jews as a joke.  It is integral to the end-time.  We have seen the plain fulfillment in our lifetimes.  No one replaces the Jews.  No one replaces Israel.

I would say that no one replaces anyone; that is not the purpose of the differences. The differences, with with covenant and promises, sprang first from Adam and are purposeful for the work of God to be fulfilled despite what Jews, Gentiles and Israelites do in their spare time. The term "Abrahamic Covenant", like "Melchizedek Priesthood," is a convenient reference accommodating our reckoning, to point us to what it really is. I think Luke 3:8 suggests as much. The end-time prophecies and the events all along the way depend on or leverage these differences both in what we are in what God accomplishes through us. 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2024 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

I would say that no one replaces anyone; that is not the purpose of the differences. The differences, with with covenant and promises, sprang first from Adam and are purposeful for the work of God to be fulfilled despite what Jews, Gentiles and Israelites do in their spare time. The term "Abrahamic Covenant", like "Melchizedek Priesthood," is a convenient reference accommodating our reckoning, to point us to what it really is. I think Luke 3:8 suggests as much. The end-time prophecies and the events all along the way depend on or leverage these differences both in what we are in what God accomplishes through us. 

Luke 3:8 rhetoric won't help anyone find a way around unconditional promises.  And God does not accomplish an unconditional promise through us.  Instead, He does it despite us (and the horse we rode in on).  He does it for His own personal integrity -- Isaiah 43:25, 48:11, Ezekiel 20:9,14.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Luke 3:8 rhetoric won't help anyone find a way around unconditional promises.  And God does not accomplish an unconditional promise through us.  Instead, He does it despite us (and the horse we rode in on).  He does it for His own personal integrity -- Isaiah 43:25, 48:11, Ezekiel 20:9,14.

But for some reason we do not call it the "Abrahamic Unconditional Promise." Considering as such recognizes only part of the equation. As long as the metaphors are involved, it is also conditional ("Amen to the priesthood and authority..."). The right to the Priesthood for the seed of Abraham (and who are his seed?) is unconditional; becoming his seed by adoption, remaining his seed whether born or adopted, and keeping the right and the Priesthood are not.

There is no need to find a way around anything. We ultimately choose the laws we observe, and all kinds are built into the Abrahamic Covenant. The broadest way I can think of something being both unconditional and conditional is that everyone (of which Abraham, the house of Israel and the Jews are a subset, for very practical, foreordained or foreseen purposes) is given the unconditional promise of eternal life and exaltation through Christ -- He accomplished it already --  but we have to choose it.

At any rate, Columbus discovered America just a few days ago. That ship has sailed!

 

[theplains]

On 10/14/2024 at 1:42 PM, smac97 said:

4. My question is this: If Columbus was religiously Christian (Catholic), and possibly also ethnically Jewish.  Does this matter?  Does this affect, or should it affect, our assessment of Columbus insofar as he is referenced in The Book of Mormon?  If Columbus was ethnically Jewish, does that carry any doctrinal import for the Latter-day Saints?  Or is this recent genetic study just a curiosity?

Does 1 Nephi 13:12 ("a man among the Gentiles") mean that man is a Gentile or could it be a
man of any nationality that just happened to be sailing with the rest of the group?

Christopher Columbus first landed in the New World in October 1492, on an island in the 
Bahamas, which he named San Salvador. After his initial landing in the Bahamas, he explored
several other areas in the New World. He traveled to Cuba, which he believed might be part
of Asia, and then to Hispaniola (present-day Haiti and the Dominican Republic). On his subsequent
voyages, he also visited parts of Central America, including the coast of present-day Honduras,
Nicaragua, and Panama. He did not explore areas north of Central America. His voyages primarily
focused on the Caribbean and parts of Central America. The lands that are now the United States
and Canada were explored by other European explorers, such as John Cabot and Jacques Cartier,
after Columbus's time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyages_of_Christopher_Columbus