Cuomo defends Christopher Columbus statue

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I don't get the taking down Columbus statues thing. In my mind there's a clear difference between individuals who rebelled and fought against the government of the United States to preserve the institution of slavery and an individual who engaged in slavery as part of a voyage which changed the cause of history, for both good and ill.

A statue of Jefferson Davis is commemorating the Confederacy; a statue of Columbus is commemorating the European discovery and colonisation of the Americas. I don't think the latter is as objectionable as the former, and I don't see how a country birthed by European colonisation like the United States could in good faith apologise for itself.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

But Columbus did not ever visit the modern day US, was not the first European to visit America and didn't really do anything but butcher Natives in the Caribbean ala Leopold II in a manner so brutal the same people carrying out the Spanish Inquisition removed him from his post for being too brutal.

Columbus is as deserving of a statue as Pol Pot.

1. Columbus is an important enough figure that historians divide the history of the Americas into Pre and Post-Columbian eras and lend his name to the Columbian Exchange, one of the most important events ever to happen to humanity.

2. The personal character of a statue's figure is besides the point: what matters is what the statue symbolises. This is why the "R.E. Lee was a nice guy" defence fails for statues of that particular Confederate general, because whatever Lee's personal beliefs were and however he conducted himself as an individual, the statues to him represent a commemoration of the defence of slavery as an institution etc.. With Columbus, he represents the European colonisation of the Americas, particularly by Italian-Americans as the first Italian to travel to the Americas, which is an inextricable part of the history of the United States and has both positive and negative aspects.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

But Columbus did not ever visit the modern day US, was not the first European to visit America and didn't really do anything but butcher Natives in the Caribbean ala Leopold II in a manner so brutal the same people carrying out the Spanish Inquisition removed him from his post for being too brutal.

Columbus is as deserving of a statue as Pol Pot.

1. Columbus is an important enough figure that historians divide the history of the Americas into Pre and Post-Columbian eras and lend his name to the Columbian Exchange, one of the most important events ever to happen to humanity.

2. The personal character of a statue's figure is besides the point: what matters is what the statue symbolises. This is why the "R.E. Lee was a nice guy" defence fails for statues of that particular Confederate general, because whatever Lee's personal beliefs were and however he conducted himself as an individual, the statues to him represent a commemoration of the defence of slavery as an institution etc.. With Columbus, he represents the European colonisation of the Americas, particularly by Italian-Americans as the first Italian to travel to the Americas, which is an inextricable part of the history of the United States and has both positive and negative aspects.

Columbus wasn't Italian and Italy never colonized anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. Italy is a younger country than the US.

He was Genoese. We're talking about Italian people, not an Italian state (what do you think Columbus Day is celebrating??). Italy has been around as a self-conscious people of sorts since at least Roman times: read the Aeneid.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I don't get the taking down Columbus statues thing. In my mind there's a clear difference between individuals who rebelled and fought against the government of the United States to preserve the institution of slavery and an individual who engaged in slavery as part of a voyage which changed the cause of history, for both good and ill.

A statue of Jefferson Davis is commemorating the Confederacy; a statue of Columbus is commemorating the European discovery and colonisation of the Americas. I don't think the latter is as objectionable as the former, and I don't see how a country birthed by European colonisation like the United States could in good faith apologise for itself.

You don't see why people don't want to commemorate this and events like it?

[img]

Colonialism was objectively pretty damn awful. Sure, it gave us the world we have today, and I certainly don't think we should forget about it. But putting up statues of the figures responsible for genocide, slavery, and untold oppressions doesn't seem right.

So, presumably, you would be in favour of removing every single statue of a US President before #30 Coolidge gave Native Americans citizenship? Lincoln, who oversaw the removal and massacre of thousands of Native Americans under his Presidency, should have his statues removed? If that's the logic of why the Columbus statues should be removed then there are going to be precious few European-American leaders before the 20th century whose statues will remain standing.

Yes, the European colonisation of the Americas was a near-genocidal disaster for indigenous Americans. But I don't see how one could honestly redress this by removing statues without erasing the entire fact of the European origin of the United States itself.