The statues crisis typifies the rising tide of cancel culture

The removal of monuments for Robert E. Lee and the Juan de Oñate, who most people acknowledge as having been unequivocally on the wrong side of history, is not the problem. The problem is with the mob mentality that has gone on to encompass everything any historical figure has done as either being racist or anti-racist, sexist or anti-sexist, problematic or empowering. Nothing that figures like Edward Colston or Cecil Rhodes did should ever be worthy of celebration because of the few bad spots on their record that we disapprove of in retrospect. This is oddly reminiscent of the cancel culture that has also been recently rising among the same group of liberals, where social media users either adequately fit the standards of internet wokeness or are banished to the abyss of cancellation forever. The problem with this is the false black-and-white dichotomy that has been forced onto people and forced onto our interpretation of history. Progressives should understand that not being a good person does not make you a bad one and that historical figures, just like modern people, can do bad things to some while doing great to others.^[1] Cecil Rhodes, for example, was a ruthless imperialist. Yet, at the same time, the scholarship established under his name has helped many students who otherwise might not have been able to afford it to study at one of the top educational institutions in the world. Surely, a man whose last imprint on the world was to leave his wealth to a scholarship meant to promote fellowship among humankind and to "render war impossible" is more nuanced than simply the atrocious human being whose statue must be slaughtered by the mob.^[2]

[P1] The rejection of historical figures is unfair because bad actions shouldn't represent someone's entire legacy. [P2] Historical figures are only being rejected because of the mob mentality of cancel culture, where people gang up on targets who have been canceled without actually discussing the nuances.