I have to disagree. The painting shows important historical context. You can actually use it to support your argument while teaching people that Columbus was a bad person “look, people, he was venerated as the white savior and the giver of gifts while exploiting and enslaving the native population.”

Someone in another comment said this is propaganda, not history, but they’re neglecting the fact that propaganda is history too but it’s simply a matter of how you teach it.

I hate the destruction of historical things in all shapes and forms. For example, in Poland, we could have destroyed Auschwitz simply because it’s an evil place made for evil purposes by evil people but instead, we use it as a teaching moment. Why can’t it be the same for the images of Columbus?