Wait a minute TRS, are you trying to trick me again? Columbus Day is in October!
Vandals defaced an iconic statue of Christopher Columbus in Boston’s North End by covering it in red paint and tagging it with the phrase “Black Lives Matter.” - via WCVB Channel 5 Boston
I know, I know; we're only supposed to have to deal with this orgy of self-hating SWPL signaling once a year, but we appear to have had a little misfire in the afterglow of #TakeDownTheFlag and the cavalcade of "conservatives" willfully denouncing Confederate heritage. Really, it should come as no surprise then that in the wake of recent vandalism of White statuary, whether in the South or South Africa, that Christopher Columbus was going to be next. There are a lot of Columbus monuments in this country and he is not well-liked by the rising generation of iconoclasts, as we are reminded annually.
A lot of mythology also exists around Columbus—both on the left and right—but in my opinion he is a symbol worth defending. With the loss of the Confederacy as an acceptable form of unique Anglo-American heritage on the grounds of muh racism, is it really any wonder that our opponents are emboldened enough to go after Columbus? But before we jump into that, let's go through the aesthetic of this act of vandalism and move on to my favorite thing, ovenworthy Facebook comment threads.
Okay, first of all, ...huh? "Black Lives Matter" being graffiti'd on a Columbus statue? I guess something something White supremacy something something colonialism something racism something dindu nuffin. So in other words if an American statue of is of someone:
3.) historically important
Then we also need to add that it is racist! Doesn't matter how lazy the connection is; it's just racist. And that's bad. #BlackLivesMatter! We can fight racism by defacing the statue or removing it altogether, and then by importing more people from Latin America, Africa and Asia. Which is probably something Columbus would have supported (the moving people from point A to point B to populate a colony part, not the anti-White part).
And as always, if black lives mattered to someone other than white leftists, the black-on-black crime rates wouldn't be so insane and their ancestors wouldn't have sold them to White and Jewish merchants for trinkets and guns to use for killing and kidnapping more of their fellow Africans to sell into slavery.
And then there's that red paint meant to symbolize the blood of the six million Native Americans personally ovened by Christopher Columbus. That's actually pretty witty. But still vandalism; go directly to jail and do not collect $200.
Anyway, here are some of the most triggering and signalicious comments on the Facebook, and as always, with our brand-name TRS countersnark:
Having a statue of Christopher Columbus anywhere is in itself an act of vandalism.
Well aren't you brave. I guess you could say two wrongs make a right then? Oh right, you aren't actually about to go vandalize public property because there's a fine for doing that if they catch you. Signal harder next time.
just out of curiosity, why is there a statue of Columbus in Boston? I mean considering that he didn't actually discover any part of America...
Yeah Columbus is totally irrelevant to the European colonization of the Americas by Spain, Portugal, Britain, France etc. Why would we have a statue of a European explorer/colonist/conqueror in the United States? What an excellent question. More on that later. Also props for thinking 'Murica = America. I'll bet many of the almost 600 replies your comment got were people chewing you out for still being a privileged racist imperialist bigot who thinks the whole hemisphere is the United States even though you've denounced Columbus. Don't play their game; you won't win.
No intelligent person really cares that Christopher Columbus was defaced. I say, bring on the graffiti.
People who disagree me are dumb, said the kulak as he was liquidated. You've really added something here, and your enthusiasm for vandalizing things you don't like makes you an outstanding member of civil society.
I'm still waiting. A black church gets burned down, a vast majority of whites get quiet. Blacks get killed in church, and still nothing. But a pointless statue of a man who was a thief, who supposedly discovered a land.... WITH PEOPLE LIVING THERE.... you all get mad. I'll pray for you folk out there.
What are you still waiting for, exactly? Whites must take collective guilt for black churches being burned? And what's this "still nothing" bull about "blacks get killed in church and still nothing?" Are you being deceitful here to improve your victimization credentials? Did you fail to notice that Dylann Roof was arrested and will probably face the death penalty? Or the ongoing iconoclasm against white people in this country? Those are pretty much direct results of what you're talking about. And there's that trope again about muh stolen land. The land that makes up the United States was won by force of arms like that of nearly every state on earth and its conquerors created a new country independent from the metropolis. Get over it and stop hating yourself.
Also, a thief? Really? If you live in the United States, you're a thief too. In fact, anyone who lives anywhere is a thief, because that land was conquered at some point. Muslims in Algeria are thieves. Bantu peoples in East Africa are thieves. Any non-aboriginal living in Australia is a thief. The Han Chinese of Taiwan are thieves. Blacks in the South are thieves squatting on Indian land.
" Vandals defaced an iconic statue of Christopher Columbus in Boston's North End by covering it in red paint and tagging it with the phrase, "Black Lives Matter."
But wait, so it was/is ok that cc brought disease, rape, slavery, and the genocide of millions of indigenous people to the Americas but the people that deface the statue erected to honor all of the forementioned are the "vandals"
Nope, you're not hiding your racism well
I'm starting to get agita here. Vandalism is a crime. Conquering territory before 1945 is not. Also by your same logic of Columbus having brought all those things, he also brought the white people who invented your computer and are responsible for you being able to communicate in English with the entire world via the Internet. He's also responsible for Starbucks and the suburbanization of the American middle class. Also it's racist to report the news now. If this country isn't doomed then I'll be damned.
But wait, a lone voice cries out in the wilderness against the insanity of what was otherwise a standard signalparty:
This was a set-up no black man or woman did this
You are probably right, whoever you are. You are probably right. Boston is a college town after all.
Maybe it was this kind of person?
Well anyway, why is Columbus important to the United States? I can offer two answers: 1.) Italian immigration, 2.) American nationalism.
Regarding former, millions of Italians immigrated to the United States between the Civil War and the First World War. And they settled in a lot of northern cities, such as Boston, where they formed sizable European immigrant communities trying to find their way in Anglo-America. And for many Italians looking to combine their affinity for their countrymen back home with their countrymen in the United States, the bridge between the two was Cristoforo Colombo of Genoa. Look up the history of the various commemorations of Columbus in the United States and you'll find Italians or Italian-Americans. Or stuff about it being the n-hundreth anniversary of 1492, a fateful year for Europeans.
Which leads me to reason number two, nationalism. Columbus is not a founding father of the United States, but he is somewhere on our chain of causation. Like the Romans acknowledged the Trojans as their forebears, Anglo-Americans once widely acknowledged Christopher Columbus as the man who opened the route to the Americas to European colonists. This is indisputably part of the history of the United States, unless you think it starts in 1776. By the way, most textbooks talk about "pre-Columbian" civilization as if it were part of our history; on what grounds would Columbus not be? And it cannot be overstated that European colonization was a good thing for at least most of the people who currently live in the Americas, and certainly people of White European descent. Land belongs to the people who control it and can enforce their claim to it. Do Muslims show remorse for this?
With the exception of the indigenes, aka American Indians, few people currently living in the United States would exist if not for European colonization of the Americas, a world-historical event for which Christopher Columbus was the cornerstone. There would be no whites here, no blacks, no Hispanics (no one would even speak Spanish natively here), no Asians, no Jews, no Pacific Islanders, no purple people, etc. There would be no America.
So the next time dindu or a SWPL or a cuck or whoever wants to cry that Columbus is the worst monster to have ever lived and that White people are evil and #BlackLivesMatter more than anyone else, he should keep in mind that if he lives in the Americas he would not exist otherwise. Sure, some of his genetic material might be floating around among potential cousins, but he individually would not exist if not for the fact that Columbus sailed the ocean blue and White Europeans created the United States of America. The world-historical event that you are railing against is responsible for your own being. Do you value your existence? Then you owe respect, perhaps begrudgingly, to the huwhyte devil. #SorryNotSorry
Also published at Atlantic Centurion.