1) Nearly every modern leftist protest I've ever seen has had some element of violence, as far as I can tell some people think violence is a solution to all problems, therefore whether or not this particular controversial issue incites people to violence is tangential because it is guaranteed to due to the nature of controversy itself.
Your continued avoidance of direct answer on this leads me to believe that you condone this violence. Otherwise why wouldn't you just state "I disagree that violence is acceptable tool in reaching these goals" and we could agree and move on. Derid covered why this is important at length.
2) I've already given an outline as to how statues and other forms of symbology contribute to racism and how, therefore, their removal would contribute to tolerance. It is a multifaceted, nuanced issue and I'll leave the specifics to researchers of sociology.
You did no such thing. You repeatedly stated that they contribute to racism, and that removing them will reduce racism. I do not require you to cite papers, I simply want you to outline how you believe this would work. Do you think these statues incite white people to hurl racial slurs at minorities? Do you think KKK membership will be reduced if these come down? Do you think police would stop targeting minorities? Please explain your view.
4) I've given you my answer, I grant that for some people they are statues of great great great grandpop and for some other people they are items of sexual fetish.
So you agree that Civil War was fought over multitude of complex issues, that statues represent different things to different people, that some of these statues may have historical value... yet you go right back to reducing it all to "racists vs. anti-racists". Why?