I wonder if its cultural revisionism along the lines of some of those pulled down statues. They don't want people to know how bad it was, so they can't compare it to how good it is now, so they think no progress has been made, thus making more activists.

Recently, some university in the US came with yet another "inclusive language" update that was widely ridiculed for it tried to replace neutral and even positive words and expressions. Language vandalism.

I've seen a theory as to where this is coming from. The particular university, as do many universities, have an inflated administration where some even have more staff than students. A significant part of that staff is DEI and pretty much everybody is to commit to this agenda.

So, you have a huge amount of people that continuously need to show evidence that they're committed to the cause. What would be the easiest thing to do?

You type in a bunch of bullshit in Word, because that's far easier than working in a soup kitchen. Actually improving the world is hard so instead you do this easy thing that provides the optics, and nothing more. You don't even need to believe it, it's largely driven by fear.

It's like an engine that can't be stopped.

You can say Stanford. It’s ok.

HN discussion of that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34039816

Several of the pulled-down statues were excellent candidates for being pulled down. Of all the examples of cultural revisionism to get upset over, that's not a very good one.

Why should a small group of activists get to decide for everybody which statues are allowed to stand?

Indeed. Have a popular vote.

For the same reason we often let a small group of activists decide which statues to erect in the first place?

Many changes which I'd expect are commonly understood to be positive for society started with a small group of activists. Movements start small and public opinion doesn't change overnight. Sometimes public opinion needs a nudge from a small noteworthy action.

Had you ever discussed applying democratic values to the evaluation of the suitability of historical public statues spontaneously, before these actions made the news?

I've never heard a revisionist argument for taking down a statue. Which one(s) are you referring to?

The one with Abe breaking the chains of a slave and rising from his knees is the one I was thinking of when I wrote this. I'm not sure what its called I don't live in the USA

I'm familiar with the statue and the criticisms, and I don't know of any revisionist arguments against it. Which of their reasons is revisionist?

Sibling comment links to the Wikipedia article, which links to a news article, in case you need a refresher.

There were calls for it to be pulled down. IMO that is revisionist for the reasons I already outlined.

Literally 1984