Scan barcode
A review by uncle_remus
1421: The Year China Discovered America by Gavin Menzies
2.0
I want to see Dr. Ivan Van Sertima debate Gavin Menzies. Who really discovered America? Dr. Ivan Van Sertima who says that the Africans discovered the Americas circa 1262... which is well before 1421... but both are after the Norse 'discovered' America circa 1000... although how can a human discover a new land when there are humans already living there?
However you look at it, both Dr. Ivan Van Sertima and Gavin Menzies start with an assumption, and set forth seeking things to support their claim. They cherry-pick the facts, alter facts, invent facts, to provide support of their arguments, rather than gather all the facts and come to a conclusion.
For example.... in some cases Menzies points to a map and says, look how well the map aligns to this geographic feature. In others, he says, looks like they don't match, must be because of global warming and the oceans are 6 feet higher than back then. Or, look how peaceful the Natives were, as opposed to the nearby tribes (they must be the kind Chinese), yet 6 pages later talk about the warring Chinese with guns and swords. Maybe how the Bimini Road was built in, well, seemingly just days by a handful of people. How he managed to explain that this feature is a set of islands, whereby several are missing, to be explained that they must have passed at night, so the Chinese discovered the New World on a specific date of a New Moon: 26 Nov 1421, and not only that, the time of day - dawn! He talks of Mylodon, which are like the Mastodons and Mammoths - not seen for 10,000 years, but he proposes an idea that they captured some and put them on a ship. He calculates that one explorer would have completed his route in x amount of time, 4 months before he actually returned to China, so, ...Oh, I know, ... he made another circuit around the Pacific to discover BC and San Francisco.
But isn't it peculiar that the Asian coast north of China (which would've been traverse by 2 separate parties (the S. American to Pacific party, and the Arctic party) did not map that coastal region? Funny how EVERY place on earth was mapped and visited, EXCEPT Europe and the Mediterranean. And once in the Atlantic, not being able to sail against the wind, how did those who discovered America get home? Wouldn't they endlessly circle the Atlantic? If they did, how did the maps get back to China? and if they did get back to China, and the Emperor squashed all further trips, why bother to consolidate the maps, especially if the rest were being burned?
Well, it was entertaining, but flawed. There are anomalies in the historic record, or in the interpretation of the historic record. In Van Sertima's case, the answer is "because Africans..." and in Menzies case, it is "because Chinese..."
I do give credit to Menzies for pointing out the anomalies in the maps (assuming that they are not fakes), and to pointing out the Columbus and Magellan diary/ledger entries where the explorers state that they know something exists because they have seen it on a map. The maps seem to suggest somebody was there before them, but I've not been convinced with either author.
For scientific process, I rate this as a 1 star. For entertainment, 3 stars, so I am averaging it as a 2 star rating. If you like conspiracy theories, feel free to be entertained.
However you look at it, both Dr. Ivan Van Sertima and Gavin Menzies start with an assumption, and set forth seeking things to support their claim. They cherry-pick the facts, alter facts, invent facts, to provide support of their arguments, rather than gather all the facts and come to a conclusion.
For example.... in some cases Menzies points to a map and says, look how well the map aligns to this geographic feature. In others, he says, looks like they don't match, must be because of global warming and the oceans are 6 feet higher than back then. Or, look how peaceful the Natives were, as opposed to the nearby tribes (they must be the kind Chinese), yet 6 pages later talk about the warring Chinese with guns and swords. Maybe how the Bimini Road was built in, well, seemingly just days by a handful of people. How he managed to explain that this feature is a set of islands, whereby several are missing, to be explained that they must have passed at night, so the Chinese discovered the New World on a specific date of a New Moon: 26 Nov 1421, and not only that, the time of day - dawn! He talks of Mylodon, which are like the Mastodons and Mammoths - not seen for 10,000 years, but he proposes an idea that they captured some and put them on a ship. He calculates that one explorer would have completed his route in x amount of time, 4 months before he actually returned to China, so, ...Oh, I know, ... he made another circuit around the Pacific to discover BC and San Francisco.
But isn't it peculiar that the Asian coast north of China (which would've been traverse by 2 separate parties (the S. American to Pacific party, and the Arctic party) did not map that coastal region? Funny how EVERY place on earth was mapped and visited, EXCEPT Europe and the Mediterranean. And once in the Atlantic, not being able to sail against the wind, how did those who discovered America get home? Wouldn't they endlessly circle the Atlantic? If they did, how did the maps get back to China? and if they did get back to China, and the Emperor squashed all further trips, why bother to consolidate the maps, especially if the rest were being burned?
Well, it was entertaining, but flawed. There are anomalies in the historic record, or in the interpretation of the historic record. In Van Sertima's case, the answer is "because Africans..." and in Menzies case, it is "because Chinese..."
I do give credit to Menzies for pointing out the anomalies in the maps (assuming that they are not fakes), and to pointing out the Columbus and Magellan diary/ledger entries where the explorers state that they know something exists because they have seen it on a map. The maps seem to suggest somebody was there before them, but I've not been convinced with either author.
For scientific process, I rate this as a 1 star. For entertainment, 3 stars, so I am averaging it as a 2 star rating. If you like conspiracy theories, feel free to be entertained.