A critique is not the measurement of whether 
    statues should be torn down or books censored

A critique? No. A gross violation of utterly basic human decency? Yes.

In many recent cases, we are talking about slavery.

Many monuments glorified military "heroes" of the Confederate Army, a rebel army that sent men to their deaths fighting for the right of white Americans to own black slaves.

In general, I believe the world suffers from a lack of nuanced discussion and understanding. In the case of slavery and monuments to slavery, I find very little need for nuance.

    books censored

There's a major discontinuity between censoring information and removing monuments.

A statue is not a meaningful source of information.

It essentially yields a single data point that says, "here is something held dear by the society in which this statue exists."

Removal of a statue does not censor information or rewrite history. It merely says, "we're not celebrating this any more." If anything, in the case of the removal of Conferate monuments, it represents a greater awareness of history.

I think some people don't get just how offensive Confederate monuments can be, because most of them are intentionally couched in language that obscured what they represent. This is similar to how, in early US politics, slavery was referred to as "the peculiar institution" or even more vaguely - e.g. the original US Constitution never says "slave", but instead talks of "free persons" and "other persons", or "persons bound to service".

But some of them are just so inherently offensive, the contents overpowers the presentation - e.g. the "faithful slave" monuments and memorials. Perhaps contemplating these might help understand more subtle problems with the rest, so here's a few examples:

https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=42188

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jstephenconn/5136209868

https://docsouth.unc.edu/commland/monument/245/

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Slave_memorial_at_Pr...