Power, Statues, and Signalling

An article on the Columbus statue in front of Union Station in DC this morning provokes these thoughts:

The ability to erect statues is a signal of the power of the people behind the movement.  In the case of Union Station, it was the power of the Knights of Columbus back in the day.

In the case of statues commemorating Confederate generals, it was the power of upper class white Southern women (UCWSW).

In the case of naming forts it was likely the power of the Congressional delegation in the state, responding perhaps to UCWSW.

Now, the ability to take down statues is a signal of the power of the Black Lives Matter movement (construed broadly), power to move the needle and gain white support.

[Updated: by signaling I mean the action is not very important by itself to most people, is quite important to some.  For leaders of the movement, it's a way to gain influence.  If the KofC can persuade the powerful to emplace this statue, they must be listened to when they want X, Y or Z. If BLM can persuade the powerful to change the MS flag, then they must be listened to on other issues.  When non-legal processes are used, there's an element of physical fear involved as well, as there was in dumping the tea in Boston Harbor.]