Given how horribly interactions between more technologically advanced and lesser technologically advanced societies seem to harm the lesser ones I'm not sure it would turn out well for humanity.
A civilization capable of interstellar space travel has probably overcome "The Great Filter". I like to think there's a decent chance they're enlightened; instead of conquerors. But even if they are here to conquer, we may be better off for it. I mean, it doesn't really look like humanity is going to make it past the filter on their own.
Any civilization sophisticated enough to make a boat that can cross the Atlantic Ocean has got to have its stuff together or else they would have just mutinied on the journey over, right?
Any civilization just sophisticated enough to make a boat that can cross the Atlantic Ocean... does not yet have the technology necessary to destroy themselves. Hence, the great filter.
To play on earthboundkid’s comment, some “enlightened” explorers traveled in advanced craft from the Old World to the New World. They brought genocide and near total devastation on every society they encountered. 1492. Columbus. But the literal and figurative descendants of those aliens put up a statue of him in New York and called him a hero.
I don't know why you would call the conquistadors "enlightened". I'm talking about a civilization that's developed planet ending technology...and yet managed to not end their planet.
Well, what he did was pretty damn amazing and consequential, even if not all the consequences were positive or amazing. It was inevitable that the New World would eventually be contacted by the Old World, whether by Asia or Europe or perhaps Africa, and inevitable that when that happened, the isolated peoples of the new world would be devastated by pathogens they’d never been exposed to. Anyway, I see no issue making a statue to the guy. I kinda like statues in principle. At the end of the day that’s all they are. The world was bigger than the Americas, and still is.
>It was inevitable that the New World would eventually be contacted by the Old World, whether by Asia or Europe or perhaps Africa, and inevitable that when that happened, the isolated peoples of the new world would be devastated by pathogens they’d never been exposed to.
It's not the pathogens people object to, so much as the slavery and genocide. Particularly, celebrating the originator and perpetrator of those crimes on the land where they were perpetrated.
By all means, write about Christopher Columbus in the history books (after Leif Erikson, who unlike Columbus actually set foot in America) but let's stop normalizing erecting statues to villains.
Have you read the plaque on the statue ? Do you know the text? You can put up a statue to say someone did something meaningful or historical, not that they were a good or noble person.
>You can put up a statue to say someone did something meaningful or historical, not that they were a good or noble person.
Yes, but we don't. We don't create statues of Christopher Columbus to place his actions in their proper historical context, or to memorialize his victims, any more than we do the Holocaust with statues of Hitler. We erect statues of Columbus because until relatively recently the entirely Eurocentric narrative about him considered him a heroic figure, and the subjugation of indigenous peoples a righteous and noble cause.