ABSTRACT I examine five arguments against removing controversial monuments. I argue that none of these arguments provides good reasons for leaving controversial monuments in place. A close examination of these arguments also points to some of our misconceptions about the nature of monuments. The arguments include the claim that removing monuments rewrites history, that removal amounts to ex-post facto moralizing, that controversial monuments are needed to stir people to healthy debate, that the focus on monuments is a distraction preventing us (...) from making pragmatic progress, and that removing some monuments is the first step in a slippery slope that will lead to excessive censure of historical figures. (shrink)