https://padlet.com/20ivesgraenk/9foxb8cui0m5 en-us 2018-10-30 14:06:55 UTC 2025-11-30 17:57:08 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/icons/Tent.png 20ivesgraenk https://padlet.com/20ivesgraenk/9foxb8cui0m5/wish/298512754 To compare Leif Erikson to another explorer from a different time period, I would compare him to Christopher Columbus, because they both found North America, just 500 years apart.
Gold~ Leif Erikson was not trying to find any money, because he wasn’t even planning on exploring the land he ended up finding. When he got there he called the unknown land “Vinland” because of all the wild grapes that were there, and found out that the land was extremely fertile.
Compare~ Columbus was one that was looking for the gold. He wanted to have all the fortune and when he brought it up to Ferdinand of Aragon, he agreed and wanted the same thing that Christopher Columbus wanted. In his agreement with Ferdinand, for agreeing with him, he got 10% of whatever Columbus found.
Glory~ Again, like I said before Erikson was not trying to go on an expedition, but it was in his blood to go and be an explorer considering that his father found Greenland. Obviously he told people about his findings, but wasn’t looking for anything in return. The historians don’t know exactly where he landed and there was nothing that he was afraid of happening while there. Compare~ Christopher Columbus was a greedy man because he wanted the fame. He wanted to find new land and to get the money that he could find.
God~ If Leif Erikson found people then he wanted to spread his new religion, but considering that no one had found it besides one person that is still unclear, he wasn’t planning on that.
Compare~ On Columbus’ mind was spreading his religion to the people that lived in North America. He wanted to export catholicism across the globe.]]> 2018-10-30 14:10:12 UTC https://padlet.com/20ivesgraenk/9foxb8cui0m5/wish/298512754 20ivesgraenk https://padlet.com/20ivesgraenk/9foxb8cui0m5/wish/298518481 2018-10-30 14:18:36 UTC https://padlet.com/20ivesgraenk/9foxb8cui0m5/wish/298518481 20ivesgraenk https://padlet.com/20ivesgraenk/9foxb8cui0m5/wish/298520980 1. There was an Atlantic trader who went by the name Bjarni Herjolfsson, and he found “Vinland” 14 years prior to Erikson finding it. This is where Erikson heard it from and that's when he figured out that he was in this land. A good thing about this part is that it wasn’t unknown so Leif knew he wasn’t going to be in a crazy place, but on the flip side he didn't know what he would be seeing and what kind of people would be in America and what they would do to him. This shows that for longer than we knew, people have known about America before Christopher Columbus came along.
2. Erikson established a settlement in Vinland and after a few years there was too much hostility between the settlers and there were too many internal struggles for it to work out. 500 years before North America “came into existence” they tried to settle there. The positive to Erikson’s trial was that he did something that no one had tried to do in this land he found, he tried to make it work,  unfortunately, without knowing much how to do it, it failed, and it shows that america works better with a government system.
3. During Erikson's trial for the settlement, Europe was completely in the dark and had no idea what was going on but there is archaeological proof that this did happen and some kept record of it. A good thing about this is that no one could be telling Erikson how to do anything and he could do everything his way, and the way he wanted it done. This shows that maybe he was too afraid to tell his people or something of the sort because if you find something like that, wouldn’t you want to tell everyone?]]> 2018-10-30 14:21:19 UTC https://padlet.com/20ivesgraenk/9foxb8cui0m5/wish/298520980 20ivesgraenk https://padlet.com/20ivesgraenk/9foxb8cui0m5/wish/298526253 Although they are two very different maps, you can see the idea that they were going for. The map on this post is Leif Erikson’s and the one to the right of this post is Christopher Columbus’. These two maps are different in the amount of detail that each one has to show. Erikson’s is very vague and it doesn’t really make much sense but then Columbus’ is very detailed that it is very hard to read. There are a few similarities in these two maps in the fact that they both go from Europe to the Americas, but the scale of the two maps is quite different.]]> 2018-10-30 14:28:40 UTC https://padlet.com/20ivesgraenk/9foxb8cui0m5/wish/298526253 20ivesgraenk https://padlet.com/20ivesgraenk/9foxb8cui0m5/wish/298535024 In 1001 AD Leif Erikson was trying to find his way back home to Greenland and when he was doing so his ship went off course and he ended up in what was then known as “Vinland”. Obviously he was not intentionally trying to find this area so nothing was brought with him to this area. What he did do was try to create a settlement there and create a life there but after a few short weeks he decided that it was not going to work out so he went home. When he was home, though, he was telling of his tales and his tales were recorded. A map was drawn by Leif Erikson and that map was used in the future. If it wasn’t for Leif finding this area and making the map to there, Christopher Columbus may have never done the trek because he would have never known about it. Now, with the help of these two people we have what is known as the United States of America.]]> 2018-10-30 14:41:46 UTC https://padlet.com/20ivesgraenk/9foxb8cui0m5/wish/298535024 20ivesgraenk https://padlet.com/20ivesgraenk/9foxb8cui0m5/wish/299052908 2018-10-31 16:02:32 UTC https://padlet.com/20ivesgraenk/9foxb8cui0m5/wish/299052908 20ivesgraenk https://padlet.com/20ivesgraenk/9foxb8cui0m5/wish/299054210 During the preindustrial era, there were environmental factors that made people want to move from Africa, such as droughts, natural disasters, and climate. Africa was experiencing this and people could not handle the conditions. This is not the best because then that means everyone is leaving that are and it can become abandoned and no one will inhabit it anymore. As it was found out that bananas and some other fruits grow better in rainforest climates they started to migrate the growth of bananas to Bantu. This was good because this meant more bananas were going to grow so people could have more fresh fruit to eat that could then be traded. And the last factor of colonization was that the bigger the land the more people that could live there. America was the place they found out they could have many people living there. This was both good and bad in the fact that there were a lot of people working together to make an area work, but that also meant that they had to make what animals that were there, and the plants that they ate last so that everyone could eat.]]> 2018-10-31 16:04:50 UTC https://padlet.com/20ivesgraenk/9foxb8cui0m5/wish/299054210 20ivesgraenk https://padlet.com/20ivesgraenk/9foxb8cui0m5/wish/299345865 “Causes and Effects of Human Migration.” Khan Academy, Khan Academy, www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/medieval-times/migration/a/migration-focus-block.

Editors, History.com. “Leif Eriksson.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 22 Apr. 2010, www.history.com/topics/exploration/leif-eriksson.

History.com Editors. “Christopher Columbus.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 9 Nov. 2009, www.history.com/topics/exploration/christopher-columbus.

“Leif Ericson.” Leif Ericson - New World Encyclopedia, www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Leif_Ericson.

Luzer, Daniel. “How We Discovered That Columbus Didn't Get to America First.” Pacific Standard, 14 Oct. 2013, psmag.com/social-justice/fail-christopher-columbus-america-discovery-bahamas-holiday-68247.

]]> 2018-11-01 13:21:16 UTC https://padlet.com/20ivesgraenk/9foxb8cui0m5/wish/299345865