We’re living in uncertain, polarizing times. Identities, new facts, and changing perspectives are always challenging-including those concerning racism and discrimination. People are taking another look at historic figures and events. Iconoclasm has always been an expression of the prevailing zeitgeist: Monuments and statues have been attacked over and over during history. Controversial statues are at the center of heated debates between heads of state and military leaders as well as members of the cultural elite today. Should we do away with these contentious monuments, or is it worth adding contextualizing information to further the viewer’s understanding? This is the question. What type of stories would the statues like to tell us? Who is honored today in public spaces and why? And who will be honored tomorrow? And who gets to decide? Such a balancing act requires a flexible and renewed way of thinking above all. As you can see from the three examples from the Netherlands described below, there is no one-size-fits-all-approach. Each situation must be evaluated individually. Extinguishing traces of the past is too simple. Most statues are community property. This means the community should take the initiative to call a round table and include all interested groups in the discussion.