It's been a week in which a considerable tonnage of ornate concrete and bronze has been pulled from various plinths - or put on notice that it's now also in the demolition sights.
TV shows and films such as Little Britain and Gone With The Wind have been dropped from streaming sites on the grounds that they are racist.
American police dramas like the series Cops have been cancelled on the grounds that they represent "copaganda".
This is the new frontline fight against racism. But is it the right fight?
I'm not setting out to trivialise here the genuine hurt and grievance that people feel about statues raised in memory of men who made their money from the slave trade.
How those men built their fortunes was evil and repulsive.
I'm just not convinced that tearing down concrete effigies actually does anything concrete in terms of changing society the way it needs to change.
Once you commence memorial removal, where do you stop?
Yes, there's a good argument to be made around whether certain statuary would be better placed in museums and, absolutely, why blackface should be banned from so-called entertainment shows.
But banning Paw Patrol?
This is a "story" which started on social media this week as - I think - a joke but then, inevitably, began to be treated by some commentators as a legitimate cause for concern.
In the cartoon, the lead pup is a German Shepherd police dog. This is being interpreted as yet more copaganda and on US television has actually been a topic of debate.
Meanwhile, a poor man is lying in his grave and across America, there's an understandable anger and frustration among millions about how come, after so many supposed turning points in US history, nothing much ever appears to change.
But anger is not a strategy.
So says the one truly inspiring interviewee I've seen on US television this week.
John Hope Bryant grew up in South Central LA and is now CEO of Operation Hope, the organisation he founded in the wake of the riots that convulsed America after the Rodney King case.
Mr Bryant's message isn't just airy-fairy stuff about hope and positivity, but about bringing real, tangible, constructive change that will better the lives millions of disadvantaged people.
He wants to see introduced a new Marshall Plan.
The original Marshall Plan was an aid programme instigated by the US to help rebuild Europe after the devastation of the Second World War.
Mr Bryant wants to see a similar programme of aid targeted at the poor in his country - African Americans primarily - but also at poor, underprivileged whites.
He wants to see funding for better education, for financial literacy, for enhanced opportunity in general.
He doesn't adopt the obligatory sneer of many commentators when he talks about poor whites. He calls them "my white brothers and sisters".
In a country currently tearing itself asunder, his is a voice of reason, common sense and, above all, unity.
Instead of tearing down the past (which we can't erase), we should concentrate on the ills of the present.
We all like to think and to show that we're so much better than those old boys up on their plinths.
But slavery in the 18th century didn't begin and end with the mega-rich who lined their pockets by enslaving other human beings. The slave trade was also supported by the people who bought the likes of sugar and cotton and never gave thought to how, or by whom, those commodities were manufactured.
That doesn't happen today?
Today, we buy cheap goods and clothes which we know full well are often manufactured by Third World workers paid a pittance and living in utterly hellish conditions.
Not so long ago, we learned that greetings cards sold in stores in the UK were being made by Chinese prisoners used as slaves.
This in the 21st century. Racism, exploitation and yes, slavery - none of these things has been eradicated.
And it will take way more than lugging ornamental stone into Bristol harbour to change that.
Never in the history of humankind surely has there been a generation so obsessed with meaningful symbolism as the current one.
According to an “expert” (I’ll come back to that), a dress worn by the Duchess of Cambridge this week — a fairly ordinary day dress which has had a few outings — seemingly symbolises “freedom and peace”. It also symbolises “one’s loyalty and devotion to their work”.
All this can be taken as read because — the dress is blue.
By the same rule I suppose we must assume workmen choose to wear boiler-suit blue because they, too, want to signal “freedom and peace and devotion to their work”.
Kate may not be a blue-collar worker but she’s certainly fond of her symbolically blue dress.
She’s worn it quite a few times before, we’re told, including to the Wimbledon men’s finals in 2012.
What freedom and peace have to do with lobbing a ball over a net is anybody’s guess.
But all this matters, it would appear, when you’re an expert in interpretation of day-wear colour choice.
How do you become expert in this unusual field? Is there a university course? And what sort of career opportunities might it offer? I think we can safely say the royal writers have been scraping the bottom of the barrel of late, for poor pickings in this time of pandemic.
Meanwhile, for readers who may also wish to signal “freedom and peace” in upmarket design, the dress can be had from Stella McCartney.
It costs £685. Whatever else it symbolises then, it ain’t thrift.
Piers Morgan this week suggested that Donald Trump could go some way to healing America, might even get himself re-elected, were he to go down on one knee in the Oval Office in front of cameras. I can see how this mightn’t work. The President’s monumental ego is matched by his substantial girth. And he’s not just unsubtle, he doesn’t look too supple either. Hard as it is to imagine Mr Trump contritely getting down on his knees, it’s even harder to imagine him getting back up.
JK Rowling and the Chamber of Twitter. The Harry Potter writer finds herself at the centre of a fierce social media spat this week after comments she posted about trans women. She’s been criticise by Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe who starred in the Potter films. Jonathan Ross backed JK however, saying she was “right and magnificent”. Having talked to his daughters he then backtracked. “Let’s keep talking,” he posted. Where celebs sharing their opinions on social media are concerned, you bet they will.