Columbus Statue Replaced in Venezuela

Grand Mal said:

I doubt it. That bolded part.

Click to expand...

You doubt it? Do you know what time we're ****ing talking about?

This kind of crap is why it's important that you read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage

But whatever, if he did it was all in-house, home-grown and all in the family. It's not a statue commemorating one of those aliens off a ship.

Click to expand...

That statue is commemorating another scumbag under a different flag. Pathetic idolization.

ecofarm said:

You doubt it? Do you know what time we're ****ing talking about?

This kind of crap is why it's important that you read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage



That statue is commemorating another scumbag under a different flag. Pathetic idolization.

Click to expand...

All idolization is pathetic. A statue isn't an idol though, and as unpatriotic as I am, I've got to say that I'd rather walk daily past a statue of a homegrown scumbag than an alien invader scumbag.

Grand Mal said:

All idolization is pathetic. A statue isn't an idol, though and, as unpatriotic as I am, I've got to say that I'd rather walk daily past a statue of a homegrown scumbag than an alien invader scumbag.

Click to expand...

The person is an idol. And we know damn well, given the time he ruled, that he was as ruthless and horrible as the next leader. Idolizing him is just as pathetic as idolizing Columbus.

The ironic part is, Columbus is not being idolized. Everyone knows he was a scumbag and accepts that. He's just used as a symbol of the discovery, ensuing globalization and historically epic event. But the new statue? That actually is an idol, with people "doubting" that he was just as much of a scumbag as any other leader of the time.

So, we exchange a recognition of a historical event with a noble savage idol. Congratz, very impressive.

ecofarm said:

The person is an idol. And we know damn well, given the time he ruled, that he was as ruthless and horrible as the next leader. Idolizing him is just as pathetic as idolizing Columbus.

The ironic part is, Columbus is not being idolized. Everyone knows he was a scumbag and accepts that. He's just used as a symbol of the discovery, ensuing globalization and historically epic event. But the new statue? That actually is an idol, with people "doubting" that he was just as much of a scumbag as any other leader of the time.

So, we exchange a recognition of a historical event with a noble savage idol. Congratz, very impressive.

Click to expand...

Hey, I don't care if they tear the statue down and plant a rhododendron. That'd probably be a good choice, just so long as there's nothing commemorating Columbus on the site. I'll flat-out guarantee you that no native leader did as much harm to the people in the area as Columbus did and, in his case, being first is no big deal given how friggen far wrong he was in almost all his calculations.

ecofarm said:

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the monument symbolized the discovery of the Americas by Europe, it didn't signify colonialism.

Click to expand...

This is almost exactly the same as Lost Causers claiming that the Confederate battle flag doesn't represent slavery. You can't use a person (or a flag) as a symbol for something and then insist that his actions (or the institution that caused the flag to be created) have nothing to do with the symbol.

MadLib said:

This is almost exactly the same as Lost Causers claiming that the Confederate battle flag doesn't represent slavery. You can't use a person (or a flag) as a symbol for something and then insist that his actions (or the institution that caused the flag to be created) have nothing to do with the symbol.

Click to expand...

The Confederate flag was created as a symbol of the Confederacy and what that stood for. Columbus was not created as symbol of colonialism.

Everyone was a scumbag in those days. Singling out Columbus is BS. Swapping him for another scumbag and pretending the new scumbag was different is pathetic BS. It's a flat-out claim that Venezuelans were better people - they weren't.

Grand Mal said:

Hey, I don't care if they tear the statue down and plant a rhododendron. That'd probably be a good choice, just so long as there's nothing commemorating Columbus on the site. I'll flat-out guarantee you that no native leader did as much harm to the people in the area as Columbus did and, in his case, being first is no big deal given how friggen far wrong he was in almost all his calculations.

Click to expand...

Being first (regarding then modern Europe) is a huge deal. It changed the course of history.

Did the new scumbag change the course of history? No.

This stunt is nationalist political BS.

ecofarm said:

Being first (regarding then modern Europe) is a huge deal. It changed the course of history.

Did the new scumbag change the course of history? No.

Click to expand...

No, but if Columbus hadn't changed it history would still have changed. Cabot came from England to North America five years after Columbus left Spain and would have come if Columbus had got drunk and missed his sailing. There was no holding back the European expansion.

Grand Mal said:

No, but if Columbus hadn't changed it history would still have changed. Cabot came from England to North America five years after Columbus left Spain and would have come if Columbus had got drunk and missed his sailing. There was no holding back the European expansion.

Click to expand...

Obviously someone would have discovered America for the Europeans if not him. But since he did it he is the symbol of it. He's not a symbol of atrocities. People do not commemorate his atrocities. He's a symbol of the event and that's what people commemorate.

To pretend people commemorate his atrocities is absurd. To further pretend that putting a different scumbag statue up changes anything is stupid, especially when the new statue actually is idolization when the original was not.

To transform him into a symbol of colonization and substitute a nationalist idol is a political stunt.

ecofarm said:

Obviously someone would have discovered America for the Europeans if not him. But since he did it he is the symbol of it. He's not a symbol of atrocities. People do not commemorate his atrocities. He's a symbol of the event and that's what people commemorate.

To pretend people commemorate his atrocities is absurd. To further pretend that putting a different scumbag statue up changes anything is stupid, especially when the new statue actually is idolization when the original was not.

To transform him into a symbol of colonization and substitute a nationalist idol is a political stunt.

Click to expand...

Alright. Rhododendron or hydrangea?

Grand Mal said:

Alright. Rhododendron or hydrangea?

Click to expand...

I prefer multi-canopy food producing organic sustainable horticulture.

And if you claim that's a political stunt I'm gonna freak out.

ecofarm said:

I prefer multicanopy food producing organic sustainable horticulture.

Click to expand...

C'mon, that many syllables can't be sustained organically.

Grand Mal said:

C'mon, that many syllables can't be sustained organically.

Click to expand...

I'm just glad you didn't claim it's a political stunt (see edit)

ecofarm said:

Obviously someone would have discovered America for the Europeans if not him. But since he did it he is the symbol of it. He's not a symbol of atrocities. People do not commemorate his atrocities. He's a symbol of the event and that's what people commemorate.

To pretend people commemorate his atrocities is absurd. To further pretend that putting a different scumbag statue up changes anything is stupid, especially when the new statue actually is idolization when the original was not.

To transform him into a symbol of colonization and substitute a nationalist idol is a political stunt.

Click to expand...

I get what your saying and your making a good point, but i strongly disagree with you here

this whole thing is sort of like the confederate flag controversy, yes tearing down confederate flags wont do anything, and the same goes for tearing down a columbus statue, but its a symbol of white supremacy nonetheless, not only to victims of white supremacy, but also to the white supremacists themselves

and in the end what harm can come from tearing down this statue?

dimensionallava said:

I get what your saying and your making a good point, but i strongly disagree with you here

this whole thing is sort of like the confederate flag controversy, yes tearing down confederate flags wont do anything, and the same goes for tearing down a columbus statue, but its a symbol of white supremacy nonetheless, not only to victims of white supremacy, but also to the white supremacists themselves

Click to expand...

The Confederate flag was created as a symbol of the Confederacy and what that stood for. Columbus was not created as a symbol of colonialism. He was transformed from a symbol of the European discovery of America to a symbol of colonialism for political purpose in the making of a nationalist political stunt.

You cannot compare that which was created specifically as a symbol of a government and what that government stood for with a person who was a scumbag like everyone of that time. If all governments were the same as the Confederacy, just as all leaders were scumbags at that time, you might have a point with that simile.

and in the end what harm can come from tearing down this statue?

Click to expand...

It's allowing a person (though a known scumbag) to be transformed into a false symbol so that a nationalist idol can be held up in the claim that Venezuelans were superior to Europeans of the time. Nationalist supremacist propaganda founded in idolization and false narrative (that people commemorate Columbus' atrocities).

I'm not saying tearing down a statue is bad, I'm saying the stunt in its entirety is bad for society. It's really just taking the same position falsely claimed to be held by others (idolization).

ecofarm said:

The Confederate flag was created as a symbol of the Confederacy and what that stood for. Columbus was not created as symbol of colonialism.

Click to expand...

But Columbus' actions are certainly representative of colonialism. Just as you argue that Columbus symbolizes the discovery of the New World rather than colonialism, pro-flag people argue that the flag symbolizes "Southern heritage" rather than slavery. Both arguments require ignoring or outright dismissing what the man did/why the Confederacy was created.

Everyone was a scumbag in those days.

Click to expand...

That's unfair if only because adventurers generally come from the worst elements of society. IIRC, most of Columbus' crew was made up of criminals. The behavior of glory-seeking bandits who'd spent months on a ship getting scurvy and blue balls isn't really representative of all of humanity.

MadLib said:

But Columbus' actions are certainly representative of colonialism.

Click to expand...

As were every Westerner's actions at that time and for centuries before him. Thus a distinction without meaning.

Just as you argue that Columbus symbolizes the discovery of the New World rather than colonialism, pro-flag people argue that the flag symbolizes "Southern heritage" rather than slavery.

Click to expand...

Columbus discovered the New World, the flag did not create the Confederacy.

Both arguments require ignoring or outright dismissing what the man did/why the Confederacy was created.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The distinction you make of Columbus being involved in colonialism is meaningless and the flag did not create the Confederacy, the flag was created as a symbol of the Confederacy. As noted, Columbus was not created as the symbol of colonialism, it's not what made him famous.

That's unfair if only because adventurers generally come from the worst elements of society. IIRC, most of Columbus' crew was made up of criminals. The behavior of glory-seeking bandits who'd spent months on a ship getting scurvy and blue balls isn't really representative of all of humanity.

Click to expand...

Those in power. One did not achieve power in the 1400s via niceties, Old World or New.

ecofarm said:

As were every Westerner's actions at that time and for centuries before him. Thus a distinction without meaning.

Click to expand...

The moral distinction isn't at play here. Saying that Columbus' actions were colonialist is 100% accurate.

Maduro is terrible, as was Chavez, and I also question the government's motivation for doing this. However, taken on its own, you can't really blame a nation that fought for independence from Spain and has a large indigenous population for removing a figure of someone whose actions were at best (as even you acknowledge) par the course for colonialism.

Columbus discovered the New World, the flag did not create the Confederacy.

Click to expand...

Now this is a meaningless distinction. Columbus' discovery of the New World is not some separate event that can be divorced from the reasons why Columbus was sent in the first place or from what Columbus did once he discovered the people who lived there. The people who fly the Confederate battle flag either say that they're supporting the secession and rebellion against the Union based on state's rights (again, entirely ignoring the reason why the Confederacy was established) or because of "heritage," which is just a dumber version of the first reason.

Those in power. One did not achieve power in the 1400s via niceties, Old World or New.

Click to expand...

But the colonizers were brutal even by early modern Spanish standards; the government jailed Columbus and attempted to regulate the slavery of Native Americans in the colonies. Obviously, practically every Western and many indigenous political establishments were not boy scouts, but the people who opened up the New World were basically pirates.

MadLib said:

The moral distinction isn't at play here. Saying that Columbus' actions were colonialist is 100% accurate.

Click to expand...

So was EVERYONE'S. Thus, he's NOT a symbol of colonialism any more than any other Westerner of the time.

Maduro is terrible, as was Chavez, and I also question the government's motivation for doing this. However, taken on its own, you can't really blame a nation that fought for independence from Spain and has a large indigenous population for removing a figure of someone whose actions were at best (as even you acknowledge) par the course for colonialism.

Click to expand...

I've no problem with that. I've a problem with perverting a symbol of discovery into a symbol of colonialism when he's no more a symbol of such than anyone else.

Now this is a meaningless distinction. Columbus' discovery of the New World is not some separate event that can be divorced from the reasons why Columbus was sent in the first place or from what Columbus did once he discovered the people who lived there.

Click to expand...

BS. Everyone from that time is a "symbol of colonialism".

The people who fly the Confederate battle flag either say that they're supporting the secession and rebellion against the Union based on state's rights (again, entirely ignoring the reason why the Confederacy was established) or because of "heritage," which is just a dumber version of the first reason.

Click to expand...

How can you not comprehend? The flag was CREATED as a symbol of the Confederacy. No other symbol is more a symbol of the Confederacy. It stands alone as such a symbol. The same is not true of Columbus.

But the colonizers were brutal even by early modern Spanish standards; the government jailed Columbus and attempted to regulate the slavery of Native Americans in the colonies. Obviously, practically every Western and many indigenous political establishments were not boy scouts, but the people who opened up the New World were basically pirates.

Click to expand...

Those opening the New World were no different than any leader of the 1400s, brutal and without ethics. You need to keep perspective regarding the 1400s.