A couple of years ago, one governor in Nigeria took building of sculptures as a mandate.
Some were entertaining and the story behind them were worth researching about because it talks much about our history as Africans.
Since I have always love history like my Dad, I like researching on some of those monuments.
With the current demolition of this monument in our capital, I repeatedly ask myself these questions - should it be there, should it not have been destroyed long ago, since that time has long passed. And yet this is history. History must be remembered and preserved for sure. But should it be kept in exactly this way (a huge monument in the center of the capital, symbolizing a rather controversial and even shameful event).
I did not find a definite answer to all my questions.
Many countries around have removed the same such monuments a long time ago, but some of them have kept them. There can be many motives behind either action. A historical monument is a symbol, it is loaded with, gathered in itself all the weight of the event it presents. It's hard for something like that to just be crossed out/removed.
P.S. I don't like historical monuments so much, but rather independent works of art, i.e. those that are not so burdened with past events.