Many Latin American nations, as a foundational genesis, sculpted in bronze some of their egregious horrors: conquerors, encomenderos, slave traders, genocides, army leaders who massacred entire populations, and a foreseeable etcetera. If it is true that, as Ernest Renan says, nations are less what they remember than what they are forced to forget, we could ask ourselves what is the role of monumentalization and the invention of public memory and national heritages in this founding oblivion. The wave of intervention, impugnation, and demolition, as the case may be, of monuments generally dedicated to male heroes, has become generalized in recent years in the continent and the world. How can we read this iconoclastic will? How can we approach it, taking into account the political impulse that drives it? Could we think of the iconoclasm behind the intervention and the toppling of recent statues and monuments not only as the impugnation of a proper name, a historical subject, a genocide or a slave trader, but also as the overthrow of that sovereign gesture, of a relationship with authority, the relationship of recognition to who narrates, who fixes, who names? Indigenous collectives, feminist collectives, organized women's groups against patriarchal violence, political groups fighting for the recovery of land, but also individual citizens, passers-by who join a collective call, participate in the iconoclastic actions. At the same time, institutionalized voices speak of the need to avoid "heritage damage", insist on "the preservation of identity signs" -even when, as most of the media reports during the 8M marches in Mexico City showed, the vast majority of the population that was in the streets "defending the monuments" did not know who was represented in the monuments or what place in history they had. This is not necessarily a "failure" of power, perhaps the opposite. But the question emerges on this point: what happens to a society that is called upon to "preserve" that about which it lacks a narrative, or whose narrative no longer corresponds to meaning, to experience, to the "truth effect"?