I think there is a simple set of criteria to base that on. * To what extent is their wealth attributable to the unethical practice? * The degree that were the

I think there is a simple set of criteria to base that on. * To what extent is their wealth attributable to the unethical practice? * The degree that were they aware of the unethical practice * What level of control did they exercise in relation to the unethical practice? * Even if unaware, were they negligent in relation to the unethical practice? * What practical steps did they take to mitigate the damage they did upon becoming aware of the unethical nature of their venture? I agree a systematic approach is the only way to actually solve problems. However, I think the debate around icons isn't about solving problems, but rather one of justice. Is it just for a person who imparted misery upon others to be commemorated, whilst their victims are forgotten? It's also about making a statement about our values as a society. These things matter because they help set societal expectations about acceptable behaviour. Nobody complains about the the destruction of history when Nazi iconography is destroyed despite Nazism being one of the most influential ideologies in world history. There's an interesting debate going on in the post-Soviet-Union countries right now about removing soviet iconography from the public square. Some Russians see it as destroying history, whilst many Ukrainians see it as breaking with a past that brought colonisation, starvation, servitude, and general misery.