This book starts and ends with George Washington. The general of the Continental Army, he's upset when a mob pulls down a statue of Britain's King George III, saying that this is not how to confront history. At the end, a Washington statue is pulled down during the Black Lives Matter protests.

Obviously written from the left, mostly attacking the right, this book takes a stance you'd expect: Take down statues however you like when they offend.

The problem for me is the violence inherent in a mob pulling down a statue, whether that mob is BLM protesters in Portland or the U.S. Army in Iraq.

With the push to commemorate more minorities and women, how comfortable would the author be if an angry crowd pulled down one of those statues, for actual or perceived grievances? How about Gandhi, who by anyone’s account is quite “problematic” now for his own treatment of women? Or how about MLK because of communist leanings?

The author dismisses several arguments against taking down statues, deeming them not worthy. But I believe there needs to be further examination of why we should at least hesitate to pull down statues because of current politics, whatever those politics might be. 

One of the arguments she rejects, that taking down statues erases history, is then subtly acknowledged to be true in the story of William, Duke of Cumberland, whose statue went up and then went down, and then he went forgotten. I don’t think, though, that pulling down statues erases history, as the author contends is the argument, but that it erases memory. 

History happens whether we acknowledge it or not. But if we erase statues and other memorials – which are explicitly about remembering people and events – then we lose memory of those people and events. In the United States, in particular, we have a tenuous relationship with history, not really understanding or engaging with it. Taking down memorials won’t help.

The author acknowledges this herself in the conclusion:

"Does it really change anything? The answer, generally, is no."