I'm finding the framing of this as - as in the title of this thread, as it happens - very interesting. A lot on the right have spent a lot of time over many years decrying "cultural relativism", but we're not really talking about that here. Who's being "relativist" about morality in the statue debate? Is it those who say slavery is always wrong, in the past, now, and forever, or is those saying we need to judge these figures by the standards of the time, and weigh up the positive against the negative?
It's also very very frustrating that editing old sitcoms has been folded into this debate, because that's not what this was about last week! The statue of Colston came down because for years and years, locals - including local politicians like the mayor - had been stymied by Bristolian organisations and institutions which have a vested interested in the Colston "brand". It was a widely supported, grassroots (if you like), democratic revolt against an unacceptable honouring of a slave trader in the centre of a large city. Activists and academics who have for years been arguing that the UK has a troublesome relationship with its past are finally getting significant time to put their case on the airwaves and in the printed press, and other statues and monuments - which are specifically under discussion here because they are designed to honour historical figures, not educate us about what they did - are under review. People have been talking about what they were taught about the Empire in school, and there's even been the first serious discussions of reparations that I can remember in a long time. The fact that we're now having open, complex debates about the legacies of life-long racists - who nevertheless were also, as in the example of Churchill, passionate advocates for liberal democracy - is a fantastic thing, because through these debates being had, warts and all, we all benefit through learning and education. History is always more complex and nuance than a statue can convey.
But what's happened over this week has been that this debate has been diverted into a different, parallel culvert, where the conservative and liberal culture warriors who make up most of the professional commentariat are more comfortable fighting back - because it's been the "centre ground" for debates about racism in public life in the UK in recent years. The BLM movement has nothing whatsoever to do with staking out the boundaries of acceptable comedy (what possible point is there in debating if blackface and the N word are acceptable?!), nor is it about "censorship" vs "free speech" or anything like that. It's about the ongoing deaths in police custody across the West of people of colour - and specifically and especially black people - as well as the ways in which the public sphere, from politicians to school curricula to debates on LBC, fails to acknowledge, respect, and address that as a reality and not just an unfortunate niche concern. As part of that, it necessarily demands that we ask ourselves what it is that we as a country decide is appropriate to not just memorialise - Auschwitz is an especially poor taste comparison to make here, because that is a memorial to those who died there, and a site of ongoing education about the dangers of fascism and anti-semitism - but also to celebrate in our works of public art.
