I've heard of white guilt before but this is the first time I've heard of Spanish guilt.They say the date not only marks “an intolerable act of colonialism and imperialism”, but also “the genocide of the indigenous American population by colonist-conquistadors, and an act of aggressive Spanish nationalism against all the peoples that it oppresses and has oppressed”.
Let it go. It happened generations ago. And the statue looks awesome.
Also John Smith and Pocahontas lived happily ever after.
http://dhayton.haverford.edu/blog/20...he-flat-earth/
Nice article on your point.
Imbeciles, denying and reviling their own history. My grandfather, who served in the Spanish military for years, is rolling in his grave.
Last edited by Fullmetal89; 2016-09-27 at 08:09 PM.
"I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. "
- General Jack D. Ripper.
Now that would be something good. Rename the statue Statue of Exploration while removing Columbus' name and make the Holiday remain as Explorer's Day, celebrating curiosity and knowledge. Not the greed of a petty man.
Indeed, good point! While I don't particularly know about Spain, there are many countries where Columbus is seen as an explorer who discovered the Americas. Heck, I had a teacher at university teach us that, how he discovered the Americas and was a great opener of ways. I funny enough found out the truth here on MMO Champion, for, even if I knew about Erik the Red, I had no clue on what a piece of shit Columbus was.
I understand the point those are making to have it removed. However, historical landmarks are not there to remind us of what we are today, they are there to remind us of what we were in the past. To remove history because we no longer agree with those times, is forgetting the past. Columbus, whether you liked him or not, played a large part in the history of the Western World. The statue is simply telling that story. Should we also destroy the Roman Colosseum because it was a place of death for slaves? Should we burn all the texts of the past because of the way the authors looked upon women in society?
There are places in our society for historically significant landmarks for everything. You don't have to tear this one down, to put up another one to signify our thoughts today. I've never seen this statue, I probably never will. They will do what they do, and it won't affect me. However, I think it's a shame when historically significant landmarks are lost, regardless of the context.
Edit:
I liken it to this, if we find ancient hieroglyphics depicting slavery in the great pyramid, should we destroy the pyramid and replace it with a statue of a slave chipping away at rock?
Last edited by Narwal; 2016-09-27 at 08:16 PM.
You could (or can) argue that you can't speak of the age of discovery/exploration without talking about war, slavery or genocide. But if we're going to remove any celebratory monuments associated with that period based on the idea that they represent a dark side of history, well, then might aswell right rid of all monuments.
To celebrate someone or a moment in history while disregarding it's darker moments is on you. It's your choice to do so. If we were going down that road, then Portugal would have an equally long road ahead in tearing down it's monuments. We discovered the maritime route to India, but we comitted a lot of shit cause of it.
The pyramids are inherently impressive for their size and construction, and also represent both an interesting era of history as well as what humans are capable of constructing with (comparatively) limited technology. By comparison, the statue of Columbus bears similarity not to the pyramids, but to a statue of the slave master who made sure the slaves never got a break.
You also leave out the relevant time frames. The pyramids weren't built after the fact to commemorate Ancient Egypt, but are remnants of that time period. The Bacelona monument in question was built in 1888, specifically to honor Christopher Columbus and his first trip to the Americas, almost 400 years after said voyage took place.
Can we destroy the monarchy in Britain while we're at destroying the symbolism of anything that killed someone in history? Maybe we can destroy all the holy sites of the world?
Human history is a violent one. We keep these landmarks around not because we believe in the context, but because being near those landmarks can pull you into that time period. You feel the times of old, how foreign it would be now for one of us to be there in that time. It makes sense for a people directly under the rule of a dictator overthrown to topple status of that dictator. It makes less sense for a people generations later with no attachment to that person to topple it.
We have (had? not sure if it's still there...) a Juan de Oñate statue here in NM. A handful of people were real fond of sawing the statue's foot off, given he ordered the right foot chopped off of all the males in the Acoma pueblo in 1599.
So at what age does something become a relic and not just an ever changing political sentiment?
For what reason were the Pyramids constructed? All I seem to recall is that they were built upon the backs of slaves to bury the wealthy/powerful in so that they could pass onto the other side. How is this virtuous in any scheme more than a people commemorating someone of historical significance to them?
Last edited by Narwal; 2016-09-27 at 08:31 PM.
Killing millions is a big of an exaggeration don't you think? Millions may have died as a result of Columbus "discovering" the new world, but he didn't personally kill them, or even set up the machinery by which they were killed. There were tons of "conquistadors" who traveled from Spain, France and England primarily to the "new world". There were subsequently thousands of people beneath them who participated in many mass killings over the centuries. To blame all of that upon Columbus as though he organized it or headed it up simply because he was first is a rather extreme exaggeration. On top of that, there were a darn lot of worse elements that came after him.
Also, yes, some statues to Hitler and Stalin should have been left up. Why? To remember what they did. To keep us from shoving it under the table or burying it as "just history". Hitler was a man, Stalin was a man, Columbus was a man. They weren't monsters or boogeymen or inhuman entities with nothing but a thirst for death and conquest. We don't need to portray them as devils and we shouldn't portray them as heroes, we should portray them all as what they were: men. As evidence that the risk exists for everyone.
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
Oh, well, I stand corrected in that regard then. I lumped them in with the legions of the white guilt crowd that parrot the same drivel. If they're just sticking their thumb in the eye of the Spaniards because of a local cultural conflict, far be it from me to discourage them. They're still wrong about Columbus though. This just makes their motivations slightly less detestable.
I think that should be left up to the Spanish, but thats just me.
Or better put, the catalans in this case,
Reminds me off the people who want us to remove our De Ruyter statues, really annoying.
- - - Updated - - -
It makes a lot more sense for them to get rid of it for that reason, yes.
Just replace it with a statue of Cruijf lol