That word, inclusive, is taking on a totally differing meaning which is nearly the opposite of what it originally meant. The type of inclusivity it indicates le

That word, inclusive, is taking on a totally differing meaning which is nearly the opposite of what it originally meant. The type of inclusivity it indicates leads to divisiveness, the splintering of society in a multitude of factions battling for a place on the agenda of inclusivity. The way to get a place generally lies in finding a common grievance and starting a drive for society to address it. Where statues were once meant to bind the people together through a shared history, these inclusive statues serve to split people into factions. Instead of realising that these monuments are not to be taken as literal examples of holiness but as symbols of some common cultural ancestry in time and space they will now be turned into egocentric billboards of the individual's personal mood of the day. I suggest replacing all toppled statues with one of emperor Nero playing a harp while watching the city of Rome burn since that is what the evisceration of history will lead to. History, good and bad, is there to learn from. You can not glorify the good parts without criticising the bad parts, however: You can not criticise the bad parts without at least acknowledging the good parts. Doing so is just as intellectually dishonest as doing the opposite.