You may be interested in this Monday Methods post I did late last year around this topic. While it isn't necessarily representative of general perspective from historians, it does offer some insight into an Indigenous perspective on the issue with some additional readings.

Part of the issue is that the concept of reviewing historical figures that have an established foothold in some portion of the history of the United States has become highly politicized and this skews, in my opinion, both logical and moral motivations for wanting to review said figures. When the subject becomes so entangled in the polarizing views that exist within the realm of politics, it becomes difficult for declared outsider perspectives to enter the discourse and even more difficult for them to be understood.

In this case, you have some people who want them removed and you have some who want them to stay. The opposing group in this binary situation become fixated on the other, but what about Indigenous people? The excerpts you provided from George Skelton, for example, neglect any attempt to reason what Indigenous people would have to say rather than just examining what the left side of the U.S. political spectrum has to say, which often usurps Indigenous peoples position in the name of being "allies" (along with other minority groups). And judging from his bio on the link, this point is made even more clear. He is described as a "political columnist." Indigenous politics are not even a blip on the radar in this country in terms of a credible ideological approach to governing the United States. Based on that alone, I think we can say that his words are inherently exclusive of the people who care most about changing the day and that undermines the discourse entirely.