system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: There are no historical figures that would stand up to today's "accepted moral standards"* enough to not have someone complain about a statue of them

There is a lot of footage of the vandalism of various statues or monuments because the protest at the time does not agree with what that historical figure did. I can't think of anyone who would pass the test without offending at least one significant group of people.  Some of them are obvious (e.g. Edward Colston in Bristol) but some will are not.  I'd like to be proven wrong on this one but every time I have read about a historical figure there is always controversy from someone.

Maybe we should use 50 years since death to define historical.  

This is my first cmv so bear with me on this one.

*Obviously "accepted moral standards" is up for interpretation/debate but i dont think I'm in a position to define that.

EDIT: I'm British so don't get all of the US references.  To clarify, my specific view is that I can't find any statues that wouldn't have a common modern protest group complain about them.  I'm definately not pro old colonial/slave era statues or have any angle in this other than every historical figure I have read about wouldn't be accepted today for one of their viewpoints.

2ND EDIT: ok, it's fairly clear that there are some fields where either the information known about the person is only their professional contribution.  There are multiple examples in literature, music, arts, science, engineering, etc..  
Also, most ancient historical figures seem to be exempt from comparisons, however harsh they were or their culture was. I guess this is due to the timespan that comparisons are completely meaningless. 
So I would say that although I was obviously thinking about this in the recent context the original CMV was too broad.  With respect to the the historical figures from the past few 100 years there are a few that seem to pass a cursory check and it keeps coming back to race. I guess this is inevitable as it is both a historical and current issue so historical figures would probably have recorded their views.  They probably didn't have to confront more hidden issues in history which are only gaining traction recently.

Thanks for comments on this, my first CMV post wasn't too brutal.
gpt
There's no such thing as a flawless person in power, so you're technically correct. But the issue isn't historic in that sense, it's that they're people living in a flawed reality.

That doesn't mean every statue is ground for offense. It's important to consider what a statue represents or exalts. When you have a statue of a confederate military leader, shown in a military leader context, then it celebrates treason for the purpose of owning people - that's what the statue stands for, the primary theme. Meanwhile, the Duke of Wellington may be an aristocrat that certainly did some bad things at some point (see the first paragraph), but his celebration is primarily one of defeating Napoleon, which is a legitimate thing to celebrate. So the statue is fine.