Sounds similar to the kerfuffle over statues of and things named after people who owned slaves at a time when owning slaves was accepted by a large fraction of the population as fine.

I wonder how many of the people getting upset over those statues and names, and how many of the people who they suggest should be subjects of replacement statues or supply replacement names, do/did things that are accepted as fine now but will be considered terrible 150 years from now?

For instance, maybe the animal rights people win and a future Earth is all vegetarian or vegan, and then the statues we put up of MLK to replace statues of people like Robert E Lee come down, because MLK ate meat.

Decisions about who gets a statue or gets things named after them should be based on the things they did that were extraordinary in their time and that have relevance to our time (either because those extraordinary things have effects in our time, or because we want to inspire people to do similar extraordinary things). The ordinary things they did in their time should not be relevant, regardless of what we now think of those ordinary things.