All statues are symbols and all symbols, with greater or lesser intensity, raise questions, debates about identity or political disputes. The statue of Christopher Columbus arrived in Mexico almost 150 years ago from Paris and since 1877 it presided over one of the roundabouts on Paseo de la Reforma, the most emblematic avenue in the country's capital. Last Sunday, the head of Government of Mexico City, Claudia Sheinbaum, one of the leaders closest to President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, announced the replacement of the sculpture by a monument to indigenous women made by the Mexican artist Pedro Reyes.
The decision, which divides historians and public opinion, takes place in a context of cultural battle, driven by the Government, by the claim of the Mexica civilization against the so-called conquest.
The statue of the admiral, bearing the full symbolic burden of the historical consequences of his arrival in the Caribbean in 1492, was removed last year on the eve of October 12.
The authorities then argued the need for a restoration.
But now, just before the celebrations of the 200 years of independence on September 27, his destiny has been written.
The ensemble, the work of the French sculptor Charles Cordier, will be relocated to a city park.
Monument to Christopher Columbus, created by artist Charles Cordier in 1877.
López Obrador himself referred to this measure on Wednesday, assuring that the monument "has been attended by personnel specialized in conservation and restoration matters."
"The head of Government reported that in the place where the Columbus monument was located the figure representing an indigenous woman will be placed, this is what is outrageous," added the president in reference to the attacks by a deputy of the opposition Party National Action (PAN), whom he accused of inciting hatred.
The debate, however, is more complex than a simple crossover of political accusations.
These are the opinions of the experts.
Federico Navarrete, historian and professor at UNAM, anthropologist and popularizer.
Colón's departure from Reforma was inevitable. In one way another what was going to happen is that it was going to be destroyed. When they took it out a year ago it was days before a protest march and it was already seen that it would not last long. It is not a whim nor is it intolerance. It is part of an all-America campaign and it is not in vain. It marks a clear distancing from that narrative that privileged colonization. The statue was placed in a time when it was spoken in those terms. Regarding the work that is going to replace it, I believe that no one will be able to question that indigenous women have been the mainstay of that country. So it seems positive to me. Also, your choice may have to do with the feminist movement. I think the gesture has its strength, although it was done in a hurry and it might have been nice to have a public debate.
Yásnaya Elena Aguilar Gil, linguist and writer.
The proposal to place the statue of an indigenous woman in the place where the statue of Columbus was in Paseo de la Reforma shows, on the one hand, the lack of imagination that leads to consider other types of memorials that can display new possibilities of relating with the past.
On the other hand, it shows that a good part of the public opinion still believes that these statues like the one of Columbus should not be removed even though they have been erected to commemorate characters that serve as a constant reminder of the violence they erected.
Another question also opens: how is an indigenous woman represented?
Martín Ríos, professor of History of Europe in the Middle Ages at UNAM.
It seems like a smart decision to me, because on the one hand it will protect the monument, which is part of the history of the city.More than a century later, the context has changed and now we have another, it is no longer the idea that Colón bring civilization to Mexico and that Mexico is a debtor. In addition, the roots of indigenous culture have been valued throughout the entire American continent, which is why it is important to give recognition to these matrices in the public space. That, of course, does not mean failing to recognize the importance of the shared history that we have since 1492. At the same time, it allows us to recognize this monument and give space to other voices. In the context we are in, the fact that she is a woman is very important. It is a public, political act that recognizes the importance of women in history.
Cuauhtémoc Medina, art curator, chief curator of the Museo Universitario Arte Contemporáneo (MUAC).
It is "Mexican art" at its finest: a commission decided by a governor without any contest or consultation, favoring an artist affiliated with the regime. The sculptor proposes to reissue the indigenous ideologies of the mid-20th century: the representation of an imaginary indigenous woman, who will celebrate the eternal supplantation of original societies by a State that is faithful to its corporate identity. This is the happy birth of a new idea of Mexican identity, which celebrates thirty centuries of the Neolithic tradition of stone carving, as a symbol of the pleasure of exploiting cheap labor. The image of a happy homeland that defeats the exotic ideas that deprive us of our beautiful colonialist monuments, to release more beautiful neocolonial sculptures that will make officials, ideologues and tourists happy.
Rodrigo Reyes, filmmaker and director of the movie '499'.
As a Chilango, as someone who has known this Paseo de la Reforma, of course Colón is not a character to celebrate, he is part of the looting and one of those who sowed the idea of modern capitalism. But from my point of view, as a cinematographer, what strikes me about this is that there is very little background to the decision. There are many people who are undergoing a current colonization. It is an abstraction and changing it for another abstraction seems very unwise to me and it worries me because it does not deepen. I would put the microphones to the people who are suffering the fractures of today's Mexico. Nobody looks at Colón, he has nothing to do with today's Mexican society. The imaginary is changed a bit, but there should be a background. The problem in Mexico is that history is managed from above and intervenes from power.On the day of the disappeared, the victims were not attended to. I would compare this change with the model of the Main Temple of the Zócalo, while next to it we have the real temple without repair. A montage of history where it shows that we do not have the will to truly understand it.
Luna Marán (filmmaker) and Gabriela Jauregui (writer).
Under the monuments and in the shadow of the statues, women now called indigenous are beaten off the sidewalks, denied papers and passports, made less, obstetrically violent, silenced in nets, disappears or kills for defending their territory.
Women now called indigenous are not interested in being earrings of power, and the earrings of power in a country where austerity is public morality should cease to exist.
Let life be sown and statues founded!
Ernesto Betancourt Arriaga, architect and urban planner.
Removing Columbus is a mistake, it is an affectation to the memory of the city.
It is true that he has chiaroscuro like all historical figures, think of Villa or Hidalgo or the Mexica.
They represent an era, the biography of the characters is only one aspect.
It is also a work of great artistic quality by Charles Cordier, as in the case of the figure of Tolsá de Carlos IV - who was not a very estimable character either.
It does not mean that it cannot be done, but not as one more occurrence and replace it with another;
with another stereotype like the one that is intended.
It should not be done lightly, removing monuments and censoring history is almost never a good idea, reminds the Taliban who destroyed 6th century Buddhist sculptures because they did not coincide with the dogma of the new regime.
Subscribe here
to the
newsletter
of EL PAÍS México and receive all the informative keys of the current situation of this country
