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

The UK controversial statues debate is an opportunity to think about how we look at history

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
Argument‹6 of 7›: The UK controversial statues debate is an opportunity to think about how we look at history

We rarely reflect on the role of history: how we understand it, and how that understanding shapes the present. This debate is an opportunity to do precisely that.

The argument

The light on the controversial statues that many have removed, or want to be removed, actually opens the opportunity for us to really think about how we look at history. The people depicted by said statues have unarguably been involved in some horrible activities, and nothing about a more cautious approach denies that. However we can not change the past, nor can we hide from it. All that we can do is learn from it, and think about how to learn from it and view it — which is a harder task than deciding where a statue should stand, and one that removal by itself does not carry out. That is why taking the statues down settles less than it appears to. Even if the statues are removed, it would be far from enough. That would just be hiding history, replacing a monument with an absence that explains nothing to anyone who passes it. It's important to figure out how dishonoring a person from history would serve the present, or how it might demand equality — questions that have real answers, but answers that must be worked out rather than assumed from the act of removal. There is also the matter of what the figure was originally honoured for. If statues are removed, what about the positive deeds that person did to receive the recognition in the first place? Either those deeds are set aside along with everything else, or do we view the deeds in a different light, from the difference in historical and social perspective? Choosing between those is exactly the reckoning this moment makes available, and it is lost if the debate is settled quickly. This issue is much more than deciding whether or not to remove statues, or it could be.

Premises

[P1]The debate over controversial statues is a chance to reflect on how we look at history, since we cannot change or hide from the past but only learn from it. [P2] Simply removing statues would not be enough and risks merely hiding history rather than reckoning with it. [P3] We must weigh how dishonouring a historical figure serves the present, and how to view their positive deeds in a fuller historical and social light. [C] Therefore, because the debate is an opportunity to think about how we look at history, we should approach the statues issue with caution.

Counter-arguments

We should not use statues as a middle ground to think or talk about history, as the entire basis of their creation is subjective and one-sided. Statues are meant for admiration and commemoration, history is learned through education, books, museums, not through statues or monuments.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] That we should learn from the past is common ground across every position on this question and does not favour caution over any other course. [Rejecting P2] Calling removal a way of hiding history assumes what the counter-argument denies: that statues are how history is learned, rather than commemorations standing alongside the education, books and museums that actually carry the record. [Rejecting P3] Weighing a figure's achievements against their conduct is a reason to decide carefully case by case, not a reason for a general posture of caution — and the argument never says what would count as having weighed them, which leaves the position without content.