> Columbus wasn't generally lionised and celebrated during his lifetime, a lot of the mythology about him comes later Right, but the point is he was lionized d

> Columbus wasn't generally lionised and celebrated during his lifetime, a lot of the mythology about him comes later Right, but the point is he was lionized during a period where people found his conquests more important than the atrocities he committed, as is consistent with master morality of the time, even if it was not during Columbus' own time. Similarly, Christianity only became really popular long after the death of Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean his viewpoints aren't an example of slave morality. > There has always been a plurality of opinion about successful celebrities, modern and historic. That's a fair point; obviously this obfuscates the situation a bit, but I don't think it disproves the general trend. > In the not so distant past the writing of the majority either didn't exist or wasn't available for consumption by society in general, and only the writing of influential people survived for us to read later. Also a fair point, but the observation doesn't rely on learning what the masses think (which I suspect is mostly what they're told to think). We see the same shift in attitude among the powerful elites. For example, President Joe Biden picked a non-white woman as his vice president, and later vowed to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court, to increase representation of underrepresented minorities. If any past president made such a declaration it would have been on record too. The same is true about a lot of other topics. Homosexuals have existed forever, but large corporations didn't find it necessary in the past to dedicate a month per year to celebrating them, and there are plenty of historical records to prove that. And so on, and so forth. I think it's hard to deny overall that it's a sign of the times we live in that we must praise and promote the marginalized and oppressed, and criticize and penalize the powerful.