We should find ways to give more context to these statues as they convey important histories. This argument rests on the assumption that these statues were created as previous products of history and instead of being destroyed by mob or condemned entirely in the modern moment, should be re-evaluated. Following similar debates in the United States and worldwide, the UK is now reckoning with the future of hundreds of statues and monuments. Some protestors have already taken action. However, heritage such as this can be reconfigured to take into account all sides of history and be inclusive of truth retellings.  This is viewed as preferable on the basis of if the monuments are removed, the context of history is being eliminated as well. Allowing people to destroy historical structures like statues creates an increasingly difficult situation for the future and how we interpret the past. From here, a harmful cycle could evolve where society would permit the destruction of anything deemed "harmful" made in the past. There are multiple solutions proposed in how context might be given to these kinds of statues. For example, by re-interpreting the location of current monuments into a kind of "graveyard" for these statues or by rewriting their plaques, we could give valuable context to these statues. It would be beneficial to increase the number of statues that are more diverse, respectable figures by modern standings.
On the other hand, the historical significance of these figures and their statues or monuments is made irrelevant by the context in which they were erected. For instance, if a statue exists because of the wealth of an individual (i.e. Cecil Rhodes) or because of their contribution to the slave trade (i.e. Edward Colston) it does not matter how they factor into a modern narrative. As such, caution is not always necessary, and neither is context.
Rejecting the premises