It's an interesting article - but the question about who gets to be the arbiter of historical crime is the issue that society will struggle with. Depending on the political or social lens that you look through. almost all people will fail by relativistic modern standards.

Martin Luther King Jr for example advised a young homosexual activist to go and get psychiatric help. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/01/20/martin-luther-king-jr-gay-teen-advice-ebony-magazine-civil-rights-coretta-scott/ - at the time, this was very progressive thinking - today it looks like he was advocating conversion therapy (and he probably was).

Would it be permissible to bring down an MLK statue on the grounds of homophobia? As you said in your article. 'Why not?'. The answer to which is everything that MLK achieved in other aspects of his life. The question of who does the arbitration on these matters is a difficult one, everyone has their own agenda. (Not me... I'm a penguin. But everyone else certainly.)

Human beings are a complicated mix of good and bad traits. Almost every decision that is made by a public figure causes pain and suffering in one group or another. As an example, Frederick Douglass might be lauded for his abolitionist position - but following his split from Elizabeth Stanton on the issue of the 15th amendment he could be considered someone who deliberately set back women's rights. Depends on which relativistic position you take.

We have to find a solution to the problem you're posing but I'm not convinced 'why not?' is the answer. It'll lead to an ideological bun fight and a big 'ism' off between the various factions of identity politics. Having said that I disagree with the premise of your argument, I did very much enjoy your article and I hope it gets some good traction. Thanks for writing :o)