you of all people complain about simplistic arguments all the time, while delivering the most uninformed and simplistic american civil war explanation?
try to make an actual argument when you have at least the most basic understanding

feel free to share your "understanding" of the parts of my post that you disagree with, if this is not just another butthurt rage reply. i'm really curious how "informed" people justify these hundreds of monuments, erected in times of racial tension, as a provocation towards the black minority.
because so far, the main counter "argument" seems to be: 'b-b-but washington and the romans also had slaves, do we destroy their monuments too? muh history!' some particularly "intelligent" supporters of "southern culture" even demanded to tear down every building constructed by aforementioned parties, as an equal reply to taking down confederate statues - some ppl, huh?.
but hey, as a well informed and intelligent bloke, you will surely agree that a lazy false equivalence fallacy doesn't make for a good point, right? so please, present some fresh and valid arguments for a change...

If we are going to put up statues of treasonist then they might as well be winners.

Imo it's a local issue to those living in areas where the statues are located. If the majority don't want the statues there then they should have the right to have them removed.

John Brown didn't win.

I don't understand how destroying any monument to our history is a reasonable thing to do, even if you don't like it, it happened.

its not like you care about facts anyway and while we talk about laziness
you are not even able to invest 5 minutes into reading about the american civil war to understand that there was much more to the conflict than the valiant north vs bad guys in the south (
but dont let me stop you and your propaganda and ridiculous judgement of historical figures like robert e lee