I thought art was supposed to make us uncomfortable, can be open to interpretation and provoke discussion? Are we not doing that anymore? Should we just let the mob irrationally and incorrectly censor history?
Who puts up statues in the first place? Is that not also the work of 'the mob'? Most of the statues under threat went up during an era when "democracy" was far more restrictive than today.
(When Colston's statue went up, for example, only about 1/6 of the population of England had the right to vote.)
Can't we move on from this fatuous type of argument that claims that changing anything in the public space, ever, in any way, is 'censoring history'? It's such a weak argument. It's self-evidently not 'censorship' for a later generation to disagree with an earlier one's view of who should be celebrated in public spaces in perpetuity. Those who claim it is have no supporting argument, they are just making meaningless noises to express emotion based on unrelated political partisanship.
Is it 'censorship' if a road-layout is altered or a building replaced with a new one?
There have to be better arguments that can be made about the topic, surely?