Age of Discovery? Or....?

We have a bit of a problem the whole "Age of Discovery" thing.

It is a term used for a period of history whereby European ships landed on foreign shores for the first time.

There is no question these were intrepid sailors, nor that they were doing something no one had ever done before, crossing vast oceans for the first time, with nothing but the hope that they would find there way somewhere, and make it hope again to tell the tale.  

But how could you say you had "discovered" a place that was already inhabited by other people? This of course was the start of European expansionism and colonialism, where the riches and peoples of other lands could be exploited and transferred back home, with little regard for how these things were used or "owned" by the original inhabitants. Including the inhabitants themselves, as slaves became cheap labour for industrial endeavours. 

It is only now, and not even yet for the politicians and historians of many colonial powers, that this history is acknowledged as a legacy to be reckoned with. 

But what if your ship was the first ship to land somewhere, an island for example, that had never been inhabited by people? Ok, then I agree, and I think you could say that you had Discovered it. And what if you had led a voyage that was the first to go from here to there, safely? Is that not Discovery? 

In Belem, near Lisbon, there is a magnificent Monument to the Discoveries that juts out to face the ocean, designed to indicate a Portuguese caravel, with a line of influential leaders that led the so called Age of Discovery. There are different characters carved on each side, although in the front, seen from both sides, is Henry the Navigator. His mother, Philippa of Lancaster, makes it on as the only female, but this is no token - she earned her place. 

It's a wonderful monument, but we prefer to think of it as a Monument of Exploration, rather than Discovery.