It's a fair question. My take would be that if there is still a deep structural problem in society today as a result of actions in relatively recent history, then it is worth considering how we portray that history; through the education system, through public monuments, and beyond. When it comes to slavery, that history is far more recent than a GSCE textbook will have you believe; everything did not end with the passing of the abolition act in 1833. In 1833 the British Government spent £20 million - 40% of its total budget at that time - to pay compensate slave owners for their loss of earnings. [Let's put to one side the fact that the former slaves received absolutely nothing.] That debt was being paid off until 2015. Hopefully that gives you an idea of how close this history really is.
Of course this only deals with the immediate ending of slavery. The long shadow of the slave trade was the fundamental dehumanisation of anyone with black skin, which meant society was comfortable treating black people differently for over a hundred years after 1833, with protection in law around race discrimination only coming into existence in 1965. That is within the lifetime of many individuals posting on this board. No wonder this issue still has huge ramifications for the society we live in today, and it is hardly a surprise that those affected today by the brutality and long shadow of the slave trade might take issue with who we choose to edify in society today, be that through street names, statues or who we put on our bank notes.
By contrast, the impact of Boudica on the societal structure of today is much harder to see, and I'd suggest the example is puerile if we're being honest about it.
I'd challenge the notion expressed by a few posters that "we can't rewrite history". History is constantly contested, challenged and rewritten. By way of an unrelated example, the history of the Peasants Revolt of 1381 has gone from being seen by contemporary historians and society as an unwarranted uprising; to being seen by later historians as a rightful uprising of the poorest in society; to being seen as a bourgeois rebellion by modern historians. Likewise, how we view the history of the slave trade, Empire, and discrimination in the 19th/20th centuries will rightly be challenged and evolve.
To bring that into the current debate, challenging how we discuss and display those who grew rich on the back of slavery is, to my mind, right and certainly unsurprising. In the case of the Colston statue, if that is through putting it into a museum so people can still learn about the history without it being glorified, fine, although I particularly like the Banksy suggestion of capturing the moment of the statue being pulled down, which of course is now history itself. Changing the wording beneath the statue would be a minimum response, which itself has been debated for years by the local council with many blocking the changes.
