Viewing Christopher Columbus As A Society

After recently learning that Christopher Columbus contributed to the significant mass genocide of Native Americans and that he spread numerous diseases that were rampant throughout the Americas, I was alarmed and intrigued as to how our society views him. Since I was very young, I was always taught that Columbus was a very brave and intelligent man who discovered the Americas by "sailing the ocean blue." This is why we celebrate his accomplishments on Columbus Day. Obviously the information that I received as a child was not entirely complete! Despite the fact that it is very disturbing to believe that Columbus was actually the explorer who brought with him disease and destruction to Native Americans, I still believe that he had the best intentions of delivering positive economic development to the Americas. He had no idea that there would be humans native to the land he ‘discovered’, or conceive that the immune systems of the natives would be unable to defend against the viral infections brought by the Europeans. His intentions, as well as those of his fellow voyagers’, were not to kill but to explore and to conquer new uninhabited territory. Despite the fact that Columbus was not the first individual to discover the Americas, without the courage and guidance of Columbus and his inaccurate navigation skills, the Americas wouldn't have been developed and established as early as they were. Without his vision, part of North America might not have formed into the thirteen colonies and evolved into our present- day democracy. Columbus who was a very driven and valiant man, was bright, diligent, adventurous, and determined to take a stand for his country--to go on a quest to find the remaining frontier of Asia for the good of his countrymen. Instead, he successfully exposed a new frontier of the Earth to the people of the world and was able to introduce the Western Hemisphere to new future explorers and developers. His ‘discovery’ led to significant economic opportunities and expansion in the Americas with positive economic impact to Europe and their means of trade. This improved the social and economic conditions of Europe. Despite Columbus unintentionally bringing disease to the Americas, his life should be celebrated for the legacy of enormous contributions to the expansion, development, and abundance that we enjoy today.

King Henry VIII Trial

After participating in the three day mock trial of King Henry the VIII regarding the issue of whether or not he was guilty of heresy, both the prosecution and the defense were successful at arguing valid points that helped support their evidence and the key facts. The prosecution's side was very clear in conveying evidence that King Henry deserved to be punished. He divorced his wives for unjustified reasons, killed many of his former friends and colleagues, and he went against the church disobeying the pope. Henry had stated that he never committed adultery, even though while he was trying to annul his marriage to Catherine, his mistress Anne was six months pregnant with his child. He was still technically married to Catherine, who had endured at least six pregnancies, not including their daughter Mary. When King Henry asserted that his first marriage to Catherine was not valid, the defense speculated that Catherine just wanted to remain on the throne for the sake of power. Actually Catherine was a very selfless and intelligent woman who was very well regarded and who offered a great deal to the king. This included strong military aid against France, since she was descended from a family who had more power than King Henry the VIII. Further why would Catherine lie about how her marriage not being consummated to Henry's older brother Arthur? Wouldn't it be quite obvious to Henry to discover this once he had married her? If he had discovered that Catherine was not a virgin, wouldn't he have annulled his marriage to her right away? Yet Henry insisted that Catherine was a liar and that she had consummated her marriage to Arthur. In fact, Pope Julius II had granted an annulment of Catherine's marriage to Arthur, on the grounds that the marriage had not been consummated, so that Catherine could marry Henry. Granting Henry an annulment meant that the sacrament of marriage had never actually existed between him and Catherine. If King Henry was allowed to annul his first marriage and marry Anne, then his own daughter Mary would be considered an illegitimate child with absolutely no rights or royal ties to the throne. Henry couldn't have married Catherine in the Roman Catholic Church, and then have annulled the marriage in his own church, because Henry founded the Church of England to bypass the Catholic Church and obtain his annulment. This action went against the Catholic Church and the pope, and it did have a legal or a moral basis. Pope Clement VII had to refuse Henry's annulment whether it was justified or not, because he was obligated to Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor. Charles V would never allow the annulment to be granted since he was Catherine's nephew. The defense’s focus was emphasizing their belief that Henry VIII was not a heretic. They argued that Henry’s marriage to Catherine was not valid and therefore could have been annulled. They insisted that Catherine was lying because she wanted to remain on the throne for political reasons and for the power. The defense maintained that Catherine’s former marriage to Arthur was valid and therefore her marriage to Henry was incestuous and invalid. Several influential figures such as Galileo were asked to testify during the trial as to their beliefs and opinions regarding King Henry situation. The defense also tried to convey that the king was a higher authority than the pope by claiming that God chooses the king while the people choose the pope. Therefore the king had a higher status and reign than the pope. They also stated that Henry’s break with the Roman Catholic Church was justified and was the most appropriate course of action for the welfare of England.

Sir Thomas More who represented my side, the prosecution, was successful in delivering a powerful opening statement with adequate support to rebut the defense’s position. Our side also succeeded in portraying King Henry as a self-centered and selfish individual. Our group demonstrated the witnesses’ bias relative to their testimony of objectivity. Our prosecution was direct, on task to the issues, and surfaced the truth regarding the behaviors, flaws and crimes of the defendants. Despite Biblical and testimonial challenges, we were resolute in our prosecution of what was right and just.

Further in-depth research on the case with analysis and defensive positions could have mitigated some of the challenges that we faced in court-particularly as it related to Biblical references. Strategic preparation would have served us well in supporting prosecution’s evidence during arguments. Awareness of proper decorum behavior in the courtroom, would have improved efficiency and effectiveness during the trial. A role- playing exercise to anticipate the opposition’s questions would have enabled us to prepare answers allowing our positions to be more convincing. It was difficult to cross-examine individuals that were not alive during the years of King Henry’s reign of power. At times, we offered commentary into the questioning that was irrelevant to the prosecution.

This exercise contributed to my understanding of the impact of The Reformation. Additionally, it provided perspective regarding the peoples’ opinions and positions on matters that was important during their lifetime. I learned of the secret opposition to the Roman Catholic Church that ultimately resulted in the Protestant revolution. ‘Application learning’ provided me with a better understanding on differing views and opinions.