The idea that statues don't normally glorify their subjects has always been absurd to me; you're literally putting them on a pedestal.

Did you ask Muslim why Mohammed owned slaves?

Did you ask Jews why the Talmud explains rules for slavery?

Why not?

Not so bold, beautiful and brave anymore, huh? Weird how that works.

Would you sign this partition? Condemning slavery by Washington and Mohamed. Easy cause, it's about slavery after all.

"Some unnamed people on a street somewhere had an inconsistent opinion, therefore OP is a hypocrite!"

And really, what kind of Muslim would propose a Muhammad statue?

The thing is, museums don't want them. They are a burden on them. And I don't blame them. These statues have no historical value. They were erected way later (not even immediately after the civil war) and they only serve one purpose: glorification. Get rid of them, learn about history from a book.

I’m Canadian so I have no idea what the historical meaning is. That said if the flag just represented racism then I feel there would be no statues erected in the first place. Pretty sure there’s more meanings but one is pro-slavery and people aren’t wrong to blanket label the flag for just that.

Isn't pictures/statues kind of against one of the Muslim principles. If I remember correctly its that Muhammad didn't want glorification via image to become a centripetal part of Islam like it had become in Christianity. Though to get around this writers wrote the arabic language in calligraphy so that the words could become pictures when put in the right order. Please correct me if I'm wrong, it has been a long time since World History and Human Geography.

The walls of Auschwitz still stand as a reminder, along with memorials to the victims. What you won't find at the Auschwitz memorial are statues of Hitler, Himmler, Eichmann, Rudolf Hoss, or any other Nazi figure. Any such statuary would have been destroyed by the Allies during the occupation as a warning to the Germans not to continue to glorify the Nazi regime, and erecting statues of those figures as part of the memorial would be considered to be disrespectful to the people who were murdered at Auschwitz and their surviving family members. 

"In other words, you cannot remove or separate the symbol from the ideology it symbolizes."

>I'm not sure about this: the swastika represents a vile ideology in one part of the world, in another it's a Buddhist/Hindu/ symbol.

Here's a swastika found on a stone dating back to the 9th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snoldelev_Stone

I highly doubt Hitler's NSDAP in the 20th century had any influence on this rendition and is it impossible, centuries from now, the swastika might be repurposed by some other group or groups not at all linked to Germany's NSDAP? The swastika has a very varied history per Wikipedia and these new groups could go on to redefine the meaning of the symbol to something more benign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

Edit: NAACP!? Bahahaha! NSDAP! Fixing my mistake asap!

Exactly. Though a few sects are less strict about it, and the occasional loophole is tolerated, depictions of Muhammad are seen as sacrilege. Which makes the whole "banning statues of Muhammad" thing so strange, as if it is meant to create controversy rather than address any real statues.