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

The UK controversial statues debate is about the decline of the West

Question: How do we think about taking down controversial statues in the UK?
Position‹3 of 3: We should approach the statues issue with caution
Argument1 of 7›: The UK controversial statues debate is about the decline of the West

This battle over whether or not to take down controversial statues is really a proxy for a larger battle about the decline of Western authority in geopolitics.

The argument

The Deline of the West is a 2 volume book and thesis on the cycle of civilizations throughout history, published in 1918 and 1922. He argues that Western civilization has passed its Cultural stage and is now in a stage of decay. This point is driven home by one of his beliefs that once a civilization has reached its stage of decay, it will embark on a crusade to put forth its moral code on the people of the world. This would explain the tearing down of statues by not only protestors but the government alike. We must focus on avoiding this period of decay, rather than perpetuating the cycle.

Premises

[P1]Proponents invoke Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West, which argues Western civilisation has passed its cultural peak and entered a stage of decay. [P2] They contend a decaying civilisation embarks on a crusade to impose its moral code, which they read into the removal of statues by protesters and government alike. [C] Because the statues debate reflects the decline of the West, we should approach the issue with caution.

Counter-arguments

Oswald Spengler’s thesis on current Western civilization can not be considered as a philosophical issue of today, because he was not only wrong about the “inevitable path” of 2 of the 8 cultures referenced in his books, he also argued that Western civilization is already in decline at the time of writing these books, which were published 100 years ago.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] A century-old cyclical thesis about civilisations is a framework rather than evidence, and Spengler's own morphology has found little support among historians — invoking it establishes only that a category exists into which the events could be sorted. [Rejecting P2] The application is unfalsifiable in the way that makes such schemes useless here: if imposing a moral code marks decay, then so does resisting it, and the same premise would classify the erection of these statues by Victorians confident in their own moral code as evidence of the same decline — which shows the framework accommodates any outcome rather than explaining this one.