I usually hear this argument in defense of racists or slave owners (ie Lovecraft, Andrew Jackson) which makes me quite suspicous. Most questions regarding this on here are answered in a way that shows that these people were in fact more racist than their contemporaries.
Is that the important thing though? Can historians only ever try to gage if someone was more racist/antisemitic/misogynist than their time's average? The argument seems to suggest that people are entirely incapable of thinking about their culture and values.
My point is not judging or condemning these people but more if critiquing their veneration is valid. A lot of questionable figures are hailed as great statesmen or heroes and their supporters usually use the above-mentioned defense.
Flippantly said: Is Columbus day a bad idea because of him being more racist than a lot of his contemporaries or because he was a racist slave owner?
/u/commiespaceinvader has previously written about empathy as a historical tool, "How do you even history?", Great Man Theory and critical theory in historical practice (praxis makes perfect!)
/u/snapshot52 has previously written about why historical research isn't neutral , non-Western chronologies, Christopher Columbus (one of numerous times), and why European colonialism is morally wrong.
/u/bitparity and others previously discussed applying modern terminology to the past.