I agree with removing Confederate statues and renaming buildings that were named after white supremacists. However, I often find the line quite fuzzy when it comes to defining white supremacists/racists. For example, would you consider Abraham Lincoln as a racist since he wasn’t an abolitionist who’d openly criticize southerners? If so, would you support taking down his statues?

I think a general principle could be that we focus more on how a person affected history in the most dramatic way. If an attitude or behavior we criticize is so common for that era, we should study and criticize the systemic social problems of the time. As long as the individual didn’t do anything outrageously bad that’s behind their time. 

Then one could argue the Confederate generals were neither behind their time nor ahead of their time. They represented what the southerners believed at the time. If Robert Lee is not considered behind its time, why does having his statues around so controversial?

Robert Lee is no longer merely a historical figure. In fact, many statues of Confederate generals were actually built after 1970, way after their contemporary time. They were erected mostly to agitate a terribly outdated, inhuman trend of thoughts or cultural norms. So, in my opinion, they should be taken down with no questions.

Hmm, that’s a good point. However, if you think about it, the Colosseum is also a symbol of brutality and basically promoted the most barbarian behaviors that would be totally unacceptable in any modern society. Why isn’t there any debate on taking down the Colosseum? How about taking down Trajan’s Column?

Because the Colosseum has zero effect on mobilizing a group to revive the historical cruelty or violence. Almost every Roman citizen endorsed the gruesome entertainment, as well as other barbaric behaviors that plagued the entire Roman world. You should really be criticizing the norm, not specific people or sites. 

Isn’t the standard for “keeping or removing” fairly arbitrary then? Because you’re saying that, depending on people’s current view, some historical objects are more problematic than others?

Yes, if something still has strong contemporary relevance, its public presence should be up to debate. And I think such evolving open debates could be rather educational for everyone. Ideally, the debate should continue until the significance of an object becomes so detached that it reduces to purely a historical curiosity.

For example, I personally think Churchill’s statues should be taken down more than Columbus’s. After WWII, Churchill went against the trend of national liberation and tried to prevent the independence of any British Empire colony like Egypt and India. He didn’t even pretend to promote any universal values – he fancied the cold-blooded colonial dream and unequivocally believed in social Darwinism. At least, during Columbus’s time, slave trading was already common in Europe and the Middle East… 

Oh, Churchill was a Racist with capital R… However, I still think statues of Columbus should be taken down, too. His influence shaped American history, and he still has a huge impact on American society. How would you feel about growing up as a Native American seeing the guy who slaughtered your ancestors being hailed as a hero in every history textbook?