>>I understand the point you're making - but the fact remains that those who wish to remove the statues (or change the name of a sports team, etc.) are the ones initiating this.
>>
>>Believe me, I don't care for those who are marching to keep the statue (and everything they are chanting in the process). But we wouldn't be having the conversation were it not for people who are so desperate for their own version of the 60's.
>
>Point well taken and yes, the burden of proof usually falls on those wanting to change the status quo, especially if there is substantial disagreement about the change.
>
>Back in the 60's you mention, federal marshals with weapons escorted black children to white schools against the wishes most of the local governments and there were uproars about states' rights, etc. which were thinly veiled justifications for racist bigotry.
>In the present case, the local government, representing the will of the people of Virginia, initiated the change.

Unless there was a plebiscite on that particular question I'd not state embolded part this way - even if it is typical/PC for representative democracies to don the mantel of peoples will. Perhaps a VERY well organized sampling of the people of Virginia would lend enough credence to recur to "will of the people", but I'd still mention sample size, margin of error, possible sampling errors and so on ;-))

Plebiscites have their own faults and dangers,but given the recent track record of most western "established" democracies I'd welcome them.
And yes, I hate to see Britain leave the EU as a result of a plebiscite, for me their "sefishness" provided a much needed balance to Brussel thinking and decisions.