But none of the statues under contention were raised for beautification. No one's marching in the street because the city or street or park will be ugly if the statue is removed.
They were raised to spoon-feed lies. They promote white nationalist values, and imply the state/city endorsed/endorses the white nationalist agenda. Sometimes correctly...
Statues of southern heroes raised for the express purpose of fighting civil rights movement are not pretty if they make you think of ugly things.
The Fremont Troll is a neighborhood beautification project that shows originality, whimsy and a serious dedication to concrete. Nowhere on the list do we find the Klan. So, nowhere do we find anyone marching in Seattle, demanding that the troll's time is over.
2) If people don't wonder about them or ask questions, that's fine. But having them there will mean that they might.
But they're not there to promote education, even by accident.
Confederate heroes are honored in places they did not fight, did not live, did not own property, for the express purpose of an agenda which is not "an appreciation of history."
I can't think of many monuments today that don't represent something reprehensible. Most are horrendous. Only a few are positive. I like all of them.
I really don't think that applies to this particular argument. A memorial at any given battlefield, for the Revolution, the Civil War, the Indian Wars, the Cola Wars, is raised for an entirely different reason than the statues raised as propaganda in the 50's.