@Pants-of-dog The only way that they truly compare is that both should be, or should have been, preserved and used to teach children.
@Pants-of-dog Ideally, in a museum where people are trained and paid to explain the racist history portrayed and how it has lead to our current situation.
OK. I am calling bullshit. People trained to say exactly what? That George Washington does not deserve to be in the history books except under the heading "vile racist"? It is important to know that he kept slaves. It does not have to be in bold print in every reference to him.
Here is what we should do POD. We should teach children about our history. We should teach them about the institution of slavery and the treatment of Native Americans. Then.
Having done that you put this and other pictures like it on display, with the appropriate date and information about the artist, and you let these educated people extract from it what they will. As a piece of art living in its own history.
I do not need to "balance" my view of Michelangelo by putting a plaque on each of his paintings reminding me that he may have been gay. All things Cuban under Castro are not bad or good. A picture of a slave owner is not inherently racist. I do not need to be reminded every time I see the name Catherine the Great that she may have fucked a horse.
Give people a good liberal education and let them go. Stop rubbing everyone's nose is shit all day long. Sometimes the fight against racism can solidify racist beliefs. Balance. Balance. Balance.