But sometimes it is ok to be offended. Sometimes tearing down statues is ok, especially if they are of your oppressor. I'm sure that during the American Revolution, statues of King George were torn down. There's a giant statue of Lenin that was torn down in Berlin after the Berlin wall came down (though more recently his head was put back together).
And I doubt any statue of Hitler ever made said anything like you suggest so that would mean changing the statue. Changing a statue because it is offensive isn't all that different that removing it for the same reason. Statues are generally created to honor somebody, not necessarily to educate you about them beyond whatever it is they are being honored for. Removing a statue that honors somebody isn't quite the same as removing them from the history books.
Yes, people have gone way overboard with the whole statue removal thing but it's not like once a statue is created, humanity has to live with it forever. The trouble is that people don't seem to grasp that you can honor someone for something good they did without them being perfect.
I am biased. I view creation and making things as a good thing. I tend to think destruction is easy and not something I admire. I also don't need anyone to protect me from history. I am quite capable of educating my children about a statue even praising a person that I do not particularly admire.
I didn't say it was wrong to be offended. I said being offended is a choice. That choice happens in your mind.
Is it the correct choice? I don't know. That is on you. Yet I think it is important to identify it as a choice because often we could choose not to be offended. I personally think being offended is usually a pretty big waste of time. There are certainly exceptions though.
The best training ground for "not wanting to be offended" is where the offence takes on a painful level. Similar to when in fighting sports competition you first take a few punches that throw you to the mat in order to learn to dodge the blows. Every hit a worthy opponent lands on you can be honoured and after you get a bloody lip, signal to him a "good fight". If you put it in that context, it would be irrelevant to be offended because it doesn't do you any good to feel offended, but to frame the offence as a challenging sparring offer.
So if a message manifested by a statue offends you, like in your given example, you don't recognise it as a training opportunity, but as a thing that needs to be put out of sight. This, however, is a bottomless pit, so anything that could be offensive must be removed from perception.
In science, if it is properly understood, a thesis is not angrily chased out of the yard because it offends, but because it has been falsified, i.e. it is recognised that every theory can be disproved and then, without particularly negative energy, the old is replaced by the new without the sensationalist urge to expel it.
An offence is just an offence. It does not kill nor threat. A kill is a kill. A threat is a threat. To equal offence with threat, for example, is what happens a lot, from my point of view. But it's not the same.
True. Statues change all the time, are removed and erected.