How do we think about taking down controversial statues in the UK?

This is an attack on the white working class

Question: How do we think about taking down controversial statues in the UK?
Position‹2 of 3›: How dare they tear down our statues
Argument‹2 of 9›: This is an attack on the white working class

The white working class, who are already disadvantaged in the UK, are being undermined yet again.

The argument

The tearing down of statues dedicated to great Brits is highly offensive and an attack on the white working class that makes up the foundation of the UK. In an attempt to appear politically correct and “diverse,” the British government has undermined its indigenous population time and again. White working-class Brits are the heart of the country, and they continue to be undermined and overlooked in order to make racial and ethnic minorities feel better about themselves. White working-class children in UK schools are consistently falling behind, more than any other group. This shows a clear lack of consideration for Britain’s native population, and it is unacceptable. Tearing down statues of important historical figures that are symbols of indigenous Britain is a slap in the face to the efforts and legacy that white British people have created over the course of this country’s history. This action discriminates against one group in order to appease another and it is an affront to the British people.

Premises

[P1]Statues of historic British figures are symbols of the legacy built by the country's white population over its history. [P2] In the name of political correctness and diversity, the argument holds, the government repeatedly overlooks and undermines the white working class, who are already falling behind. [P3] Tearing down these statues to appease minority groups therefore discriminates against the indigenous population. [C] Therefore, tearing down the statues is an attack on the white working class.

Counter-arguments

The reasoning behind the removal of certain statues has nothing to do with erasing the contributions the white working-class has made to English society. The issue is the objection to glorifying those who demonstrated behavior that is considered unacceptable by British society, and harmful towards many of its citizens, both during the time they were alive, and also from the legacy they left behind. No one is denying that these figures did some incredible things in their lifetimes. However, their beliefs and actions in other aspects of their lives, whether as eugenicists, slave-holders, or otherwise, degrades their respectability and they should not be lauded publicly with statues or monuments. Ignoring these problematic elements of many current statues is to ignore the beauty of Britain’s long and diverse history in favor of a fantasy nostalgia where only white Britons existed and imperialism, slavery, and racism never happened.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The figures at issue were not working-class. Those whose statues have been contested — slave traders, colonial administrators, imperial financiers — were merchants, officials and aristocrats, and several profited from trades in which working people were among the exploited. Treating them as symbols of the working class assumes the shared identity the argument is trying to establish. [Rejecting P2] The educational finding is real and accepted across the political spectrum: white British pupils eligible for free school meals are among the lowest-attaining groups at GCSE. But it is a finding about class and place — coastal and former industrial towns, low household income, weak local labour markets — and the premise supplies no mechanism by which removing a statue causes it, or by which keeping one would remedy it. The two are joined by juxtaposition rather than by argument. [Rejecting P3] "Indigenous population" is doing contested work, since the people said to be appeased are in most cases British citizens with the same claim. On the opposing account the objection is to public honour for particular conduct, not to the contributions of white Britons — no one proposes erasing the record, and the museums, archives and histories remain. Decisions on removal are also generally taken by councils, trustee bodies or courts rather than by central government, which is where the premise locates the intent.