Christopher Columbus monument vandalized political reasons

Post Reply New Topic

My first thought: Someone watched the August 15th episode of Adam Ruins Everything.

I read a letter written by Columbus entitled "A Letter to Gabriel Sanchez" in which he wrote about his encounters with the Indians. He forbade his men from trading useless trinkets for the Indians' gold and silver. He called it "unjust." He also described the natives as intelligent and generous. Most of his emphasis was on how he wanted to convert them all to Christianity.

I find that letter rather puzzling, to be honest. It seems to contradict everything that historians say about his character.

That's what Columbus probably thought at the time.

But his desire for power corrupted him, and probably corrupted his opinions.

Power and ego tend to corrupt opinions.

Not to mention the man was in the employ of the Spanish monarchy. Whatever his wishes may or may not have been, I'm not sure his was the greatest influence in what was to follow.

I was about to post the same suggestion. I wonder how much of the natives' fate was actually in his control - people really tend to "kill the messenger," don't they? How would things have turned out if a less radical country had been the first to seize control of the new world?

Sure...that could have had an impact.

Columbus was in the pay of the Spanish, of course.

But he did perform rather extreme actions which caused him, at times, to be arrested and taken in chains back to the Spanish Kingdom (I don't think it was formally called "Spain" until Ferdinand's death in 1519. I believe Ferdinand was the King of Aragon, and Navarre, and Castile after Isabella's death--and Spain was, for all intents of purposes, unified after 1492, when Granada was finally under European, rather than Moorish, control).

Nah. Teddy Roosevelt first. He was a eugenicist supporter. We need ASANFA to go around smashing his monuments.

We have elected in recent decades Clinton, Obama, Two Bushes, and Trump. You think history is going to look kindly on the America of this era? Does that mean future people will erase all records of us because we offend them from our graves?

Getting more serious. Why is not ok to want to keep monuments that have been reappropriated from their racist origins to "southern pride" but ok to reappropriate Autistic? We just had all of these "summer of love" anniversary commemorations where a lot of today's political divisions and drug problems have their roots. Barely a peep of objection.

I do not have an issue with rethinking things and I do not believe because it has always been that way makes it automatically right. I do have have a problem with rushed decisions mostly based on emotion.

As had been said getting rid of these monuments by for will lead to a backlash. I believe this backlash will lead to us finding out what real fascism is like (unlike the incompetent pseudo version people think is fascism now) or the left winning and a country with Orwellian traits.

Correctly criticise Trump for being a narcissistic bully but how is the antifa WE ARE GOING TO FORCE YOU TO DO WE WANT AND YOU CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT mentality better?

You...seem to be arguing against a point I'm not making. I'm whole-heartedly against tearing down these statues.

I'm against it, too. It's barbarism, mostly.

I am mostly agreeing with you. I am just expanding upon your points. I am not whole heartedly against removing them. I am whole heartily against them being bum rushed down.

I'm primarily against it. And see the usual domino effect taking place from it.

Natives didn't commit their own genocide...

According to to his (Colombus) own records of his time on the island of Hispaniola

Columbus organized his troops' efforts, forming a squadron of several hundred heavily armed men and more than twenty attack dogs. The men tore across the land, killing thousands of sick and unarmed natives. Soldiers would use their captives for sword practice, attempting to decapitate them or cut them in half with a single blow.

Columbus spearheaded a massive slave trade; in 1495 his men captured in a single raid 1500 Arawak men, women, and children. When he shipped five hundred of the slaves to Spain, 40 percent died en route.

When slaves held in captivity began to die at high rates, Columbus switched to a different system of forced labor: he ordered all natives over the age of thirteen to collect a specified amount (one hawk's bell full) of gold powder every three months. Natives who brought the amount were given a copper token to hang around their necks, and those found without tokens had their hands amputated and were left to bleed to death.

Samuel Eliot Morison, a Harvard historian and author of a multivolume biography on Columbus writes, "The cruel policy initiated by Columbus and pursued by his successors resulted in complete genocide.
Morison, Samuel Eliot, Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus, Boston, 1942, p. 617. Harvard University Press.

So basically Colombus was one of the most evil men in history, up there with the worst. The question is not whether to tear down statues of Colombus, what's more appropriate is why people haven't torn them down? he's a complete embarrassment

Meanwhile, in Seattle...

time goes on.
humans have evolved.
this is going to be a very contentious post i am sure.

if columbus did not "discover" america, then someone else would have not too long later.

so it is arbitrary whoever discovered america, and it would be that person who would now be not well admired.

just imagine that the world never discovered america, and we were still at the stage where we had satellites, then it would be such a ridiculous restraint not to go there.

same with australia.

if the english did not claim it, then maybe china would have, and there would be no aborigines left because they would all have been cooked on a spit and gobbled up by the chinese who eat anything they do not think is human.

so they are lucky we claimed the place because it was inevitable that it would be claimed by someone.

same with america.

the indians did not like it, but the western world saw them as inferior.
they obviously suffered as a result.

so the negro slave trade from africa to america to pick the cotton and till the fields and stuff were forced to work for only 3 meals a day and shelter fir their efforts.

i have read that most of them were grateful not to be scratching around in the dust for nothing in the lands they came from.

anyway, if it was not for the millions of slaves, then the african american ratio of the USA's population would be negligible (like it is in australia)

i think most slave owners treated them well.
they listened to their ideas and credited them with intelligence and stuff.

the slave owners who did not treat them well were few in number, because they cost a lot of money to buy.

idolization of statues is the same as hatred toward them.

statues mean nothing.

they are just fashioned rocks.

Australia was discovered by the English pirate William Dampier. Don't see any statues of him anywhere?