>It's disturbing how every form of protest is OK, save spilling washable
>red dye on an inanimate stone statue. One picture is worth a
>thousand words of a political statement in an illiterate age: the
>sense conveyed, whether Columbus himself was a moral or immoral man,
>is one of disturbing truth - that the westward development of this
>continent by America was no act of innocence.
It's not that "blood" was spilled, it's that by attack an icon, you
deflect attention from your message.
Instead of a blood covered statue in the news, how about film of
"dead" indians, covered in blood at the foot of the statue? Your powerful
image is there, but the message is a lot clearer.
>I would suggest that an indelible dye, not so easily washed, be used
>in future events. The result is an icon equally as valid as the
>original one. If statues are to be in remembrance, they need to provoke
>remembrance of the truth. If this produces anger, that's good. It means
>false sensibilities are losing their footing.
In response you will get people putting indelible lead into the bodies
of natives. People do it because natives get "special" fishing rights (that
never should have been abridged in the first place). How do you think this
kind of action will be received by that crowd?
Natives have nothing to gain by pulling down Columbus in the eyes
of the public, yet everything to lose. Instead, the thrust should be on the
suffering of the people since Columbus arrived.
>Defacing a statue of Columbus by anyone else might be an act of
>vandalism; by an American Indian it becomes a courageous, iconoclastic
>act of conscience. God knows American consciences need to hurt about
>this.
Agreed. But you can not force people to mourn or have remorse. It
must come about because the person realizes the tragedy of native history since
1492.
>I believe that Christopher Columbus, from his present vantage point,
>would not disagree.
I don't know about that. He'd probably send in a few missionaries to
explain "God's will" and "divine providence".
Brett