In general, I think the conversation is sort of warped by the fact that the really problematic statues (all those confederate generals in the american south) ar

In general, I think the conversation is sort of warped by the fact that the really problematic statues (all those confederate generals in the american south) are basically explicit attempts by white supremacists to ensure that the street furniture makes black people feel small. That's their history - that's why a lot of them were erected. As for the more nuanced cases, I think I'd probably go for an explanatory plaque. People are complex. One example that comes to mind is Josiah Wedgewood. On the one hand, he was an prominent slavery abolitionist. On the other hand, he employed child labourers to work with poisonous glazes, many of whom died before reaching adulthood. The problem is, many statues are more or less obnoxious attempts by dominant groups to impose their ideology on public spaces, then the present-day sympathists tend to try and muddy the water by talking about heritage and history, when it's really nothing to do with the monuments in question.