Sure, that works, do that.
Son we got kings for days over here in England. When the Queen dies we're having, like, 3 Kings in a row.
Seriously though literally any name other than Trump university.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Christopher Columbus monument vandalized in Baltimore
- Thread starter ponpo
- Start date
Seriously though literally any name other than Trump university.
Chuck Norris
Banned
Yeah it kind of does.
You're not going to find many clean figures, civilization, or people the further we go back in history. This is including victims.
I have tons of issues with U.S. history books. They are terrible and their main point is to be positive propaganda fed to children.
It is a crime that you don't get an actual account of U.S. history until you take college level courses.
The murderous slaver asshole stuff is common knowledge by now, but the interesting thing I took from this video was how Columbus was basically a historical footnote until his role was inflated and leveraged for propaganda purposes during the wave of Italian American immigrants.
Messofanego
Banned
Might be illegal to do but I understand.
polyh3dron
Banned
This is a slippery slope I am completely cool with.
For anyone not familiar with the history of Christopher Columbus, here's a documentary I'd recommend:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAwGEVI_XH4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAwGEVI_XH4
ClosingADoor
Member
Most people we know from history have been monsters, war criminals, conquerors, etc. I mean, by this account we can't really have a statue for Roman emperors also, for most national hero's of war, well known politicians and a lot more.
I'd say, stop building new ones. Look at ones that hold historical value and leave them be or put in a museum with context. Move others to storage or destroy them if they have no value. But to go around randomly destroying stuff from the 1700s is a bit much.
FreedomFighter
Member
I'm ok with this.
Froyo Love
Banned
Can you guys saying "No one's clean!" actually list some historical figures responsible for comparable genocide and brutality that are still given national reverence and monuments in public spaces?
Genghis Khan :^)
Maybe you meant why we are taught what we are taught, and not something closer to the truth?
Because it's still very important to learn about him.
Chuck Norris
Banned
Nearly all of them outside the 20th Century
Because the colonialism that followed is something that has shaped 5 centuries of history.
Maybe just stop holding the guy up as a hero, perhaps?
Sickboy007
Member
I mean, part of the argument for tearing down confederate statues is that they were built as a belated legitimisation of Jim Crow era white supremacy. Columbus monuments were mostly built by Catholic societies as a way to overcome prejudices and discrimination against Italian Americans and other catholics, so that's a pretty big difference.
Either way, vandalising an obelisk from 1792, erected as a symbol of friendship by a French diplomat who served during the revolutionary war, is really dumb. At least focus your efforts against monuments that were built after the popularisation of Columbus's crimes.
Either way, vandalising an obelisk from 1792, erected as a symbol of friendship by a French diplomat who served during the revolutionary war, is really dumb. At least focus your efforts against monuments that were built after the popularisation of Columbus's crimes.
Most if not all Roman Emperors.
All medieval kings who pushed for crusades, slavery, torture and whatsnot.
All american president of any side, as they were complicit or actively pushed native genocide and slavery.
Basically all european kings from 1600-1800 since they were either complicit or actively pushing slavery and colonialism. Same for the ottoman emperors who were responsible for the mass abduction of northern european girls and then sold them as slaves, with number estimated between 2 and 6 million women slaves.
Ataturk and the whole armenian genocide mess, as well as the deportation of millions of greeks.
Literally any Pharaoh if we're going worldwide with it. Stalin.
Don't even have to look at people.
Colosseum, Great Pyramids, Great Wall of China.
Shit didn't magically build itself for hundreds of years on the good will of people.
Audioboxer
Member
Judging far gone history by the moral concepts of today is fine to do, but just remember, it'll happen to us in a few hundred years too. The preservation of some parts of our history will be wise for historians of the future. Although, sure, most of our history will be pictures and videos. Stuff we see from hundreds of years ago due to the primitive state of technology is often clothing, artefacts, writings and things like statues/monuments/trinkets and so on. There's pictures too but nothing like the quantity our generations have created from cameras.
Anyway, it's fascinating watching how far people will go with destroying things. Folks can try and do whatever they want, I don't particularly care for saying "please stop", but there is somewhat funny comparisons to draw to others around the world who cannot control their emotions and think destroying history somehow makes the present day 'morally superior'. Not really, it just shows you cannot control your emotions and cannot parse history from current day. Having things from the past isn't necessarily an endorsement of the past. Anyone with a brain should be able to work that out. But, people going to do whatever they feel they have entitlement to do. Just don't get caught and remember to wear those face masks.
Anyway, it's fascinating watching how far people will go with destroying things. Folks can try and do whatever they want, I don't particularly care for saying "please stop", but there is somewhat funny comparisons to draw to others around the world who cannot control their emotions and think destroying history somehow makes the present day 'morally superior'. Not really, it just shows you cannot control your emotions and cannot parse history from current day. Having things from the past isn't necessarily an endorsement of the past. Anyone with a brain should be able to work that out. But, people going to do whatever they feel they have entitlement to do. Just don't get caught and remember to wear those face masks.
Yeah, Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of earth in about 200 BC.
1700 years later Columbus fucked up the math.
Theodoricos
Member
If we judge everyone and everything through the prism of contemporary morality, then nearly all monuments need to be destroyed and nearly all historical figures need to be condemned for one thing or another.
I'd rather we preserve our history.
I'd rather we preserve our history.
MegaMelon
Member
I still fail to see how a statue of him will help educate people about him which is why the whole "preserve in a museum" argument is confusing me. If you were to take some other awful man who had done something comparable I don't think a statue would help. Not a perfect example at all, but if someone was to make a statue of Hitler or something it certainly wouldn't be necessary to educate people on why he's scum.
Honestly it does seem like people are more hesitant to get rid of the statue because of its quality and history which I understand may come from an artistic position but...if doing do is stoll glorifying this man in some way is the trade off worth it?
I do agree that vandalism shouldn't have occured though, at least not until all other avenues have been tried. If a member of the Alt-Right decided to start vandalising any memorial they didn't like we'd have quite the situation on our side so let's hold ourselves to the same standards we expect from others.
EDIT:
Mighr not be a bad thing. The world is grey and our history as a species is murky, if we could get to a point where we can accurately and fairly portray all major figures I would be quite happy.
Honestly it does seem like people are more hesitant to get rid of the statue because of its quality and history which I understand may come from an artistic position but...if doing do is stoll glorifying this man in some way is the trade off worth it?
I do agree that vandalism shouldn't have occured though, at least not until all other avenues have been tried. If a member of the Alt-Right decided to start vandalising any memorial they didn't like we'd have quite the situation on our side so let's hold ourselves to the same standards we expect from others.
EDIT:
Mighr not be a bad thing. The world is grey and our history as a species is murky, if we could get to a point where we can accurately and fairly portray all major figures I would be quite happy.
BudokaiMR2
Member
It's not even a statue of him. As far as I can tell it's literally just a fairly normal obelisk looking monument with a plaque bearing his name.
I mostly just think it should be preserved because of the historical and artistic value. According to the article it might be the first ever monument dedicated to him.
Eaten By A Grue
Member
If you deface or destroy my city's historical monument, our crown jewel, you sir will have a riot on your hands. There has never been a figure in history more deserving of having a monument erected.
IaN_GAF
Member
Or maybe we should discuss what it actually means to have a statue of a certain person.
Because right now I am getting the feeling that there being a statue of Columbus translates to some people as "we all agree that every single thing this person did is amazing". Which is obviously ridiculous.
What a statue should probably translate into is something more like: "back when they built this, this person was celebrated over this and this achievement, now allow me to put this into perspective by looking at it from a modern day point of view".
That's why, rather than destroying statues, I think we should replace them. Put the old ones somewhere on display for educational purposes, but decorate our cities with statues of figures that fit our current society and moral standing, so that generations from now the children of our children's children can learn from us.
A Link to the Past
Banned
But his significance to history is genocide and slavery.
BudokaiMR2
Member
If you deface or destroy my city's historical monument of Rocky Balboa, our crown jewel, you sir will have a riot on your hands.
I dunno... I read an opinion piece about the Rocky movies years ago that broke it down as a subtly racist story about the white underdog triumphing against a new wave of blackness threatening to displace white superiority.
Are you sure you want a monument to that sort of work representing your city?
maquiladora
Member
I'd prefer older monuments like this to be removed from public spaces and put into storage somewhere because they are historical.
His Majesty
Banned
The statue is not meant to educate about Columbus. It can be used to educate people about how Columbus was viewed in Baltimore in the late 18th century (i.e. positively). It provides us a window into the past and is hence historically valuable.
I am not an artist nor a historian but I would heavily argue against the destruction of a 250 year old statue, no matter the depiction or the content.
You cannot fairly portray a historical figure through a modern lens.
Darryl M R
Member
Only Christopher we acknowledge is Wallace
PixelatedBookake
Junior Member
Ehh I can't condone this. I'm not crying a ricer over the monument, but being okay with this means I think this is the right way to handle these kind of situations. I'd prefer if it was raken down and put in a museum.
Why is everything such extreme in America. Destroying statues and everything. Why not put a plaque under the statue to teach people with text about the horrible things the guy did? You cant erase history, why not teach. Yes you can read that in history books but still, a statue is more prominent. It reminds me of the 'bildersturm' of 16th century. Barbaric.
Vincent Grayson
Member
Taking down statues of shitty people once we've realized that they were shitty people isn't "erasing history". It's correcting a fucking mistake.
Froyo Love
Banned
This kind of equivalence is horseshit. No, most historical figures outside the 20th century were not butchers anywhere comparable to Columbus, and most that are are given infamy rather than a national holiday and a place in grade school classrooms.
You do need to look at people, because impressive historical structures present their own self-evident arguments for preservation that have nothing to do with the people who made them. You can admire the Colosseum without admiring Nero. The obelisk that was vandalized isn't going to be appearing in a Civ game as a wonder of the world; its value is that 1) it is old and 2) it says "Sacred to the memory of Chris. Columbus" on it.
You're mostly speaking in broad categories. There's a reason I was asking for specifics - which of these guys are currently taught in their countries as national heroes and were actively responsible for genocide and slavery, not just complicit? I don't have a rosy view of American presidents but I struggle to see the direct comparison when Columbus' death and misery toll is an order of magnitude beyond Andrew Jackson's Trail of Tears.
Ataturk is a good example worth talking about, though.
Also an excellent example. I personally think these examples are a lot rarer than people make out, and that bloodsoaked conquerors tend to be seen more as historically interesting by modern states than as national heroes, but maybe my perspective isn't broad enough. I just don't like the lazy handwaving of "Lots of historical figures were bad!" because it downplays the scope of Columbus' cruelty and (in my opinion) the ongoing institutional racism that keeps him in a place of cultural appreciation rather than disgrace.
fierrotlepou
Member
That's one big fucking cigar.
How is ignoring and distorting history preserving it?
If these statues were memorials to the native peoples killed by Columbus, if they were statues depicting his tyranny, his cruelty, or hell, even his basic navigational fuckups, that would be one thing.
But they aren't. They are an intentional misrepresentation of a glorious past that never existed. They are idolatry for a false hero deserving of no such reverence.
"Preserving history" does not mean lying to ourselves and our children about the past, it means facing up to the injustices and monsters that created the world as we know it today.
This is hilarious
IaN_GAF
Member
I liked the story about the statue of the little girl they placed in front of the big bull. Perhaps something like this could be done. It sends a pretty straightforward message if the original is still there to prove the point.
One would only be lying if one ignored the historical lessons that can be taught, but I don't think one that would ignore this would better him or herself because a statue was demolished. By destroying the statue you literally remove the option of "facing the monsters" as you so eloquently put it.
Christopher Columbus is less American than the Confederates and just as historically regrettable. Why the fuck is there a statue of his Google-maps-needing ass?
As long as people keep targeting monuments that make sense to be mad about, I couldn't care less.
As long as people keep targeting monuments that make sense to be mad about, I couldn't care less.
Agreed.
Similar threads
- Locked