The National Academy of History rejected with a statement the change that Chavismo made to the symbols of Caracas.
In the text, they criticized the “Project for the reform of the ordinance of the symbols of the City of Caracas of the Libertador Municipality”. The document was approved in an extraordinary session held on Wednesday, April 13, 2022, by the Municipal Chamber of Caracas.
They indicated that the decision had to be submitted to a wide consultation, including the National Academy of History. This is because it represents one of the institutions authorized to issue a reasoned opinion on the subject.
They considered that «the symbols of a nation, state or municipality constitute representations of collective identity that strengthen belongingand have been built and elaborated throughout its history as a result of a shared past, so they are not a circumstantial creation of a political bias».
The National Academy of History rejects changes in the symbols of Caracas
In this sense, they added that “only a poor and limited understanding of our historical heritage can lead to the banal exercise that involves modifying the founding symbols of a city as if it were the practice, perfectly understandable, in such a case, of renovating the logo of a trademark”.
Likewise, they recalled that the coat of arms of the Venezuelan capital was granted by King Felipe II in 1591. This at the request of the Attorney General before the Court, Simon of Bolivar, direct ascendant of Simón Bolívar, the Liberator.
Regarding the elimination of the shield, they explained that it belongs to the entire Metropolitan District. In addition to this, “he has the record of having been requested by the direct ascendant of the Liberator. Its eradication should be submitted to a public consultation in Greater Caracas and not only in the municipality of Libertador.”
The National Academy of History finally made an important reminder to the population. “The Venezuelan history of the 19th century teaches us that all those festivals, symbols and political dates that were imposed by the political factions of the moment and their respective rulers of the day were without exception of ephemeral duration.”
