I understand your argument and it’s a good one, but I just disagree. A statue is a nothing but a giant symbol, and the symbolic actions matter far more than any

I understand your argument and it’s a good one, but I just disagree. A statue is a nothing but a giant symbol, and the symbolic actions matter far more than any real actions of a person in deciding to maintain that symbol. Most objectionable statues are of people that have passed out of living memory, and aren’t about the person per se; the statue symbolizes something, and people object to that something. In this case, colonialism. What you said about David and how historical he was is interesting and I love secondary analysis. But I’m terms of the argument I was making it’s neither here nor there, because the historical record is only important in how people interpret its meaning in current day. David’s actual role during his life does not change that he’s been a royalist symbol for the past two millennia.