Okay I'll join in, we've got plenty of 'usual suspects' in the pile already, let me go back to something Big Al Whittle posted last week that went under the radar:

Like the statues argument.

The statue may be anachronistic. However - does that mean that the person and the reasons for erecting that statue were without honour or just cause?

Depends on the statue. I think a thread could be devoted to the American demolition of the Saddam Hussein statue early during the Iraq war.
The more recent statues that have been taken down are for Confederate military leaders, this has been intensely interesting because in more than one case living descendants of said Confederate leaders have endorsed taking them down.

And the same with language.
You'd have to be more specific. The English language is a street fighting language with multiple changes per year, many of them contradictory (because they're out fighting in the streets).

Oliver cromwell did all kinds of damage , vandalised all sorts of beautiful artefacts - even the crown of England. Churchill's wife ripped up the Graham Sutherland 's painting of the old man. Sutherland was a much greater artist than her old man.

I don't know what Oliver Cromwell vandalized, but during the Puritan revolution, all sorts of statues were removed from Churches within England because in the Puritan view they violated the Second Commandment. Sometimes the statues were destroyed and sometimes they were stored and reappeared during the next phase of the revolution.
I've seen Sutherland's portrait of Churchill and I'm not surprised at Churchill's reaction. Presumably Pamela destroyed it because of her concern for her husband's feelings.

We destroyed all the Nazi works of art we could lay our hands on after the war. But did we miss a truth hidden somewhere?

I'm aware of lots of Nazi works of art undestroyed and so I'm wondering what you are talking about, Al, and also what 'hidden truth' did we miss?