Burning Books and Tearing Down Statues

When a few—in two different centuries—take it on themselves to destroy those things they don't want to see, read or listen to, are they the equivalent of each other?

When a few take it on themselves to burn or tear down history—what they consider the terrible legacies of history—are they imposing a selective view on the many?
​
When a few take it on themselves to silence others through slogans, banners and signs ... aren't they imposing their view on the many?

How far back do we go into history to uproot history and make it conform to our current beliefs of what is right? How far back can we go and see into the heart of a man or woman to judge their actions? Are we all now gifted clairvoyants? Were any of us there at an individual's last breath to know their regrets?

Won't history a century from now look on today's actions with a different set of eyes and new judgments?

​Will it know our last breath's regrets?

Does it matter if the target is books or statues when a few believe they know better than the many, and these few force their opinions—in both cases, with violence: one with fire and the other with axes and hatchets, rather than taking the harder path of convincing men and women in their hearts to find a better way?

Maybe, at times, the few do know better . . . maybe, at times, they don't . . . but is either . . .

. . . following the enlightened path of democracy? Does either change the heart of the individual, which is mandatory for a true internal change of character that will be reflected in a democratic society's long-term culture? . . .

. . . Don't we need a better way in a republic built on democratic principles?
​
Isn't the answer to all these questions simple? An answer provided 2000 years ago:

​Let him who is without sin cast the first stone . . . light the first fire . . . or swing the axe first.

Peter E. Greulich, A List of Questions with One Answer