There is a movement afoot called 'cancel culture', one which seeks out anyone or anything perceived to have transgressed a particular standard and sets out to put things right. Let me start out by saying that all things change over time and that very little remains of civilisations and cultures of the past but what we can excavate and stumble upon. Great statues of famous rulers, manuscripts and proclamations in stone lay buried and forgotten until found, often by chance. There is nothing that we have today that will not suffer the same fate or worse.

So why not change the names of buildings, tear down statues, bowdlerise books, ban texts and so forth if they cause offence to a group of people? This seems quite reasonable, especially if the disgruntled group has been oppressed in the past, or subject to pogroms, extermination, discrimination and so forth. Why not clear the air? Things will disappear anyway, over time.

The first reason is that the mob, no matter how righteous their anger or cause, is never the best vehicle for seeking any kind of justice for past wrongs. People get too worked up in large groups. Moreover, those with genuine grievances are often accompanied by hangers-on, faut supporters or the easily outraged. Things get thrown in the river without a real conversation about their context or significance.

And that is the point. A 300 year old book banned for its racial attitudes may have been written at a time when such attitudes were society-wide. It is a mitigating circumstance and a great teaching opportunity too. History is messy.

Here is the other thing. Looking at the past through the lens of modernity is a fraught activity. Stripping the past of its (perceived) offences against the present is both foolish and dangerous. It is also arrogant, presuming a superiority where none exists.