As I mentioned above, vandalism should not be the answer unless all other avenues have been tried.
Nothing productive comes out of it outside of some short-lived catharsis.
Yes, he was a genocidal asshole but if we really are going to go around destroying history because the views of those figures don't mesh with our own modern day morals we are going to have a lot of work to do.
As someone else mentioned, he was a product of imperialism from hundreds of years ago.
Also, setting aside the morality I feel like it is disrespectful to the artist who created the monument 200+ years ago. I doubt he toiled away at the monument knowing the truth of Colombus.
There is nothing to be gained from this sort of short-sighted vandalism in my view.
Put your energy towards something productive. Figure out a way to teach the truth of his horrible legacy. Have the monument moved to a museum where that history could be taught, etc.
When comparing the two situations, it is very easy to see that the intent of the Jim Crow-era monuments was mean to be a form of intimidation, which is why I honestly wouldn't even bat an eye if they were vandalized (although I think they should be taken down by legal means). In this case though, I don't think it is as cut and dry and I feel like there could be some historic and artistic merit to the monument if it were framed correctly.
If we are talking about actual monuments and statues from the period, I would be against them being outright destroyed.
Even if it is an ugly part of our past, it is still our history.
The Jim Crow-era statues are where the problem is because they were very obviously put up with malicious intent to intimidate.
I don't think that is the case with this monument from the 1700s. It was created from a place of ignorance.
Use the artisans work to educate more people and rid them of those ignorant perceptions.
