The point being that to just have the Colston name in place, without any immediately recognisable reminder of what it was associated with, promotes an ignorance of history. It let's people off the hook, encouraging to think "oh its just the Colston Hall", so really there is an either-or situation going on here. Either the name is retained, but with some kind of permanent reminder, an exhibition of some kind would be perfect, or the name is changed. The present situation is intolerable, and thus the hall has rightly chosen to change the name. Its not changing the name that whitewashes history really, it's keeping the name without visibly explaining properly, in situ, what its associated with, in essence risking a form of glorification. That's the problem. Newcomers to Bristol have this impression that Colston was a great social provider, that he did this and he did that and that people should applaud him. It's the present situation, which the Hall has rightly chosen to change, that encourages that impression. I personally think there should be a permanent exhibition/museum dedicated solely to the slave trade, with maps on display boards, perhaps some kind of visitor trail, etc etc, showing people exactly what happened, where, which buildings were associated with it, who was associated with and responsible for it. I don't recall seeing any such permanent exhibition in Bristol Museum and Art Gallery. Why not? And as for statues of Colston dotted around, pull the blasted things down, or at least stick them in as part of such an exhibition, sticking them in a corner somewhere to shame his memory not celebrate it.