When they're bitterly aggrieved that someone wished them "a happy holiday" instead of merry Christmas, it's because their traditions are being eroded. When someone objects to having another culture's sacred symbols made into a commodity and a joke, that's "oppressive political correctness gone mad".
When someone objects to a Confederate flag flown on a government building, that's PC, a mental illness. The people who defend keeping it there cite "our history" - but never propose putting a union flag up next to it. Nobody who is so staunchly defending the historical monuments of The South ever proposes depicting the general in question with his sword broken, drummed off the field in disgrace, nor erecting another statue beside it, of the general who defeated him.
Selective history; selective cultural icons; selective outrage.
Thing is: the monuments in controversy are triumphal [patently false] representations of the civil War. Their removal, like their location, is the decision of a duly elected city council or state legislature, in response to criticism, over a long period, by their constituents - not by a small group of outsiders who want to tell other people how to live. The same cannot always be said of the most outspoken opponents of these decisions.
Nobody objects to a cenotaph to fallen soldiers or commemorative plaque to a natural disaster that killed local residents; nobody objects to heritage buildings or memorials to artists, inventors and aviators. Nobody fights over preserving the memory of important events and notable persons.
Conflict arises, not over truth, but over ideology.
The Confederacy tore a nation in half and caused the death of over 600,000 combat troops as well as literally uncounted civilians and horses, the devastation of a landscape and loss of infrastructure, in defense of the institution of slavery. That is a fact. After losing the war, the same states continued for another century and more to mistreat their black population in both legal and illegal ways. That is a fact. The legacy of slavery itself, the struggle for political equality and the continuing prejudice are facts. A larger-than-life statue of a serene general on top of his tall horse is not an accurate depiction of the events from which he draws his fame.
These monuments are in no way defensible on the grounds of historical accuracy.
Yet, that is how the anti-removal faction presents its case.
An unbiased arbitrator might be able to find a compromise that does represent history, rather than nostalgia or aspiration.
It would very interesting to see how the lines, pro and con, would form up around that kind of public art.