John Kass, writing in the Chicago Tribune, has an interesting suggestion.
History is important, but history can also be quite offensive.
But there's one thing wrong with Sharpton. It's not that he goes too far. It's that he doesn't go far enough.
Because if he and others of the Cultural Revolution were being intellectually honest, they'd demand that along with racist statues, something else would be toppled.
And this, too, represents much of America's racist history:
The Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party historically is the party of slavery. The Democratic Party is the party of Jim Crow laws. The Democratic Party fought civil rights for a century.
And so by rights — or at least by the standards established by the Cultural Revolutionaries of today's American left — we should ban the Democratic Party.
Not only get rid of it in the present, but strike its very name from the history books, and topple all Democratic statues of leaders who benefited, prospered and became wealthy by cleaving to the party. And shame Democrats until they confess the truth of it.
There's more at the link. Recommended reading.
As a matter of fact, I don't support banning the Democratic Party, or any other (including the Republican Party, the Nazi Party or the Communist Party). I believe in free speech. Each and every party should have the opportunity to make its case to the electorate, and let the people express their opinion of its worth with their votes. If the speech used is intemperate, violent or abusive, by all means let those who find it so sue the offending party(ies) in court - but don't ban or try to prevent their speaking. Once you go down that rabbit hole, there's no way back. If you ban one kind of speech, you can ban another kind - which inevitably happens. Before you know it, free speech as such no longer exists.
That's why I'm so concerned about attempts by private individuals and organizations - Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. - to impose their own version of censorship on those with whose views they disagree. They see no problem with 'de-platforming' Nazis, right-wing extremists, etc.: but they continue to provide a platform to sexual predators, terrorists, jihadists, and other extremists who are infinitely more of a clear and present danger than right-wingers. There's a disconnect there that's mind-boggling in its ethical and moral blindness.
If you ban one offensive symbol, you have to ask: offensive to whom? Are we only to ban what they find offensive, or can we also ban what their opponents find offensive? If so, we'll end up banning almost everything. If not . . . then we'll no longer live in a free society - and I'll be damned if I let anybody take away from me the free society for which I literally fought and shed my blood. That's not going to happen. No way, no how, no matter what it costs.
It has been said:
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
One might as well amend that to read:
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to censor."
Note, too, who will not allow you to criticize or censor them. It's not just the government. It's also Google, Twitter, Facebook and their ilk . . . and that means they're taking upon themselves the role of Big Brother. Be duly warned - and alarmed.