I said that:
A black and a Hispanic, unless she is pretty much 100% indigenous to the Americas, is about as "Colonising" as you can get.
Now Mexico City has removed the statue of Christopher Columbus. The bronze Columbus statue was featured prominently on Paseo de la
Reforma, Mexico City’s main avenue since the late 19th century. The reason for this:
Mexico City Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum made an announcement on Sunday, the Day of the Indigenous Woman, said the Italian colonizer’s legacy is seen through “two visions”: One that is Euro-Centric, and another that recognizes that civilizations existed in the Americas long before Columbus arrived.
As I also pointed out in the original post that just having a "Latina" in the role doesn't eliminate the "colonising" aspect since just being Hispanic doesn't remove the colonialising aspect: One would have to be pretty much 100% indigenous. Not all Hispanics born in this hemisphere were kind to the indigenous people. Some were downright cruel.
The problem is that unless someone is writing in an indigenous language (i.e., not Spanish, English, French, Portuguese, Swedish, Dutch, Russian, or Danish), they are acting in a colonialising way. Any of the aforementioned languages were all those of countries which had Colonies in the Western Hemishphere.
We could get into that no one is native to the Western Hemisphere since there is the theory that the Native Americans migrated from Asia. How long does one's ancestry need to go back to be "native"?
I'm not a fan of Christopher Columbus. His real role was to open the Western Hemisphere to Spanish colonialisation. We can get into other European settlements, but none were as extensive as the Spanish was in post-Columbian history. Which makes any comment about "HIspanic Culture" somehow not being "colonising" an absurdity.
The culture of the Western Hemisphere is pretty much a result of "Colonisation".
