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.
See, but monuments like this distort our view of human history to the point that people might think it reasonable to assume that no one in the past could possibly comprehend that torturing people, cutting off limbs, and selling little girls as sex slaves might be immoral. Columbus was condemned for his actions in his own time. This idea that we only recently became capable of understanding the moral implications of our actions is a deliberate distortion that excuses the atrocities of the past instead of placing them in their actual historic context. It does not actually teach us history; it purifies and excuses it.
Is there actualy any proof that Columbus was directly involved in any of these acts? Or is this just some internet blogger / conspiracy thing?
A hundred castellanoes are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand. - Christopher Columbus in a letter written to a friend in 1500.