These statues honor individuals who harmed indigenous people.

The argument

We should remove statues of certain historical figures because of their treatment of indigenous people. The cases of Christopher Columbus and Andrew Jackson illustrate this point well. Although some historians question this, Columbus is often credited with discovering America. Regardless of whether he was really the land's first explorer, Columbus contributed significantly to the colonization of North and South America. For indigenous people, these colonization efforts resulted in hundreds of years of suffering. He also personally treated native people cruelly, enslaving or killing many of the West Indies' indigenous people. Andrew Jackson was America's seventh president and an avid supporter of "Indian removal." During his presidency, Native Americans were forced to leave their land, walking over 5,000 miles on what is now called "The Trail of Tears." Many did not survive this journey, and those who did were eventually deprived of what the federal government had promised them as "Indian territory." Obviously, these two historical figures, and others like them, contributed to the suffering of indigenous people. Praising them as heroes is insensitive to Native Americans and promotes a sanitized view of colonialism. For these reasons, we should remove their statues from public spaces.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Although these historical figures made grievous mistakes, they also contributed to America in positive ways. Columbus championed the exploration that eventually led to America's first European settlements. After becoming an orphan at fourteen, Jackson became the most powerful figure in the United States. During his presidency, he advocated zealously for democracy and the common man. Both of these people made poor decisions, but their stories are complex and cannot be dismissed as simply negative. We should preserve these statues as celebrations of their contributions to America because even imperfect historical figures deserve recognition for their good work.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Not every statue functions as an honour. Some mark historical significance, and a monument's meaning is set partly by its inscription, siting and interpretation — which is why adding context is a live alternative to removal rather than an evasion. [Rejecting P2] The historical record is not in dispute, but the two cases are unlike: one concerns a policy pursued through the institutions of a democratic state, the other a colonial administrator four centuries earlier. A single rule covering both is what makes opponents ask where the criterion stops. [Rejecting P3] The charge of sanitised history cuts both ways. Opponents argue that removal makes the past less visible rather than more honestly told, and that the alternative is to keep the object while telling the whole story about the person on it.