[nonaime]

But, I think that's the tricky part:

"And it's okay to praise Washington, Jackson, Franklin, etc for their part in founding and building the country and also condemn them for their wrongs."

How do you convince people that current portraits, monuments, etc aren't praising the good and bad OR (and I think this is much more the case) are praising the good and turning a blind eye to the bad?

It sounds like we need new portraits, monuments, etc to replace what we have currently.

[michaelscott]

Or maybe present them as they were, perhaps through explanatory plaques to go along with the statues, portraits and monuments: "To someone who did a lot of good for America through A, B and C, but also ratified/genocided/did whatever else we now know to be bad".

It probably wouldn't hurt to have commemorative objects of Indian leaders and country-shapers as well (of which I have no doubt there a good number), to present something more "complete" regarding American history (which, like any nation's history, is complicated and more like a series of connected creeks and streams than a single river sequence of events).

[Consultant32452]

I feel like this standard is somewhat uniquely held for US historic monuments and artwork. I think it would be laughable to go over to Europe and start suggesting people tear down thousand year old works of art because the people who created them or are depicted in them weren't very nice. I suspect Michelangelo didn't have very progressive views on race or gender, but his works are safe. Is it because the US history isn't as old? This isn't a rhetorical question, and I'm not going to attempt to debate any points. I'm genuinely curious about the position.