Erasing Confederate History is Erasing Democrat Party Sins

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

The liberal left's desire to tear down any and all memories of the Confederate States of America is reaching a crescendo.  Statues are being torn down.  State flags are being redesigned and burned.  According to the Democrats, and their Black Lives Matter brethren, all vestiges of the dark time when the Southern States practiced slavery must be stricken from record.

There's an old saying. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.  You can’t truly erase history.  Shouldn't we seek to learn from it.

In truth, the leftist's crusade is not about erasing history as much as it is about erasing the historical sins of the Democrat Party's past.

The goal is complete erasure of the sins of the Democrat Party, and the true history of liberty and equality of the Republican Party.  It is the progressive left's goal to eventually have the mobs convinced that it wasn't even the Republican Party that was the political party which was created to abolish slavery, in the first place.

Google has already begun the effort.  If you Google "What political party did Abraham Lincoln belong to," the answer you will get from Google is "National Union Party" (see image to the above-left), not the Republican Party (Abraham Lincoln was the first GOP president).

The mob reminds me of the Nazis and communists, acting under the cover of darkness seeking to do what they can to erase anything that does not make their ideology look great.  They seek to take down any statues or monuments depicting individuals who were connected to the Confederacy.   It's like the Muslims wanting to take down the Great Pyramids, and other historical sites, because it's not Islamic.  Except, there is a difference.  The Democrats don't want to take down all remnants of the Confederacy because its not in line with the belief system of their party; they want to take down all remnants of the Confederacy because every last piece of it is a reminder of who the Democrats truly are.  They are the party of slavery.  They are the party of the KKK.  They are the party of Jim Crow Laws.  They are the party of bondage and authoritarianism.  They want their history erased so that they can remake it in a new false image.  A false image they've been trying to push since the sixties, but one that only the ill-informed has fallen for.

The pawns, the tools, the idiots who fall for the Democrat Party rhetoric cheer when images of the confederate flag, confederate statues, and confederate monuments are taken down and destroyed.  They cheer, not even realizing that the ones they follow in the Democrat Party are not only the ones connected to slavery in our past, but to bondage in our present ... it's just that now, the bondage is through government dependency.

In other words, the Democrat Party Plantation still exists, but instead of the slave-master being a rich southern Democrat plantation owner, the slave-master is now a rich Democrat politician.

In addition to hiding the Democrat Party's historical connection to slavery, the cleansing is also a direct attack on the South.  The South used to be solidly Democrat, but now that the once Confederate pro-slavery, pro-Democrat southern States have abandoned the Democrats, the leftists have determined the South must pay the price for their betrayal.

In the latter part of the twentieth century the southern States began to finally take advantage of manufacturing and production, and as the free market took off in the South, by the late nineties they were ready to start voting Republican (the Southern Strategy/Dixiecrat shift is a myth, by the way) because when it comes to capitalism, it turns out that like the communists, the Democrats hate the free market economy.  So, since the South has become economically prosperous chasing the American Dream, and have abandoned the Democrats, the Democrats have determined the South must be whipped into submission.  What better way to do that then to wipe out any pride Southerners should have in their heritage?  It's the same strategy as we are seeing at the colleges.  Anything European is being demonized. The left is pushing the "white privilege" concoction from their cauldron of steaming racism, and they are using the strategy so as to rewrite history through their own vision of hard left socialist progressive religiosity.

The snowflakes demand safe spaces and free speech zones because political correctness dictates that all things not progressive is offensive and hurtful.

The thing is, it won't last.  Eventually, liberty will reveal itself to them, and the Democrats will reveal how dark and tyrannical they truly are.

Either that, or true tyranny will take place and anything that disagrees with the Democrats will be silenced, jailed, and eventually executed gestapo-style.

The Democrats don't care about the Constitution, or Americanism.  It's about power, and they are willing to do anything it takes to gain it.

As for the assault against history, it goes way beyond the confederacy.  It has become identity politics on steroids.  The way to destroy liberty is to destroy the history, especially if the hero in history is a dead white European male. . .

My buddy John L. Hancock tells a story in his Distortion of History presentation about how the confrontation visited Alfred University way back in 1991:

In the fall of 1991, the relatively small and quiet university of Alfred University in New York State was engrossed in controversy.  Indignant professors led students in protests, heated debates raged throughout the divided campus, editorials filled the school and local papers. At the heart of the controversy was the newly-installed statue of King Alfred, the medieval English monarch after whom the town and school was named. Ten years prior, when the monument was commissioned, no one could foresee the controversy it would eventually cause. Yet, its placement offended the sensibilities of the university's history professors. 

By the strong and negative reaction one would think that Alfred must have been a tyrant, an oppressor of his people, a man deserving of the title Alfred the Terrible. Surprisingly, it is the opposite that that is true. 

From 871 to 899, Alfred was the King of Wessex, one of the four kingdoms that would eventually become England. During his reign he revived the tradition of learning that had died with the fall of the Roman Empire. He required all of his nobles be literate and increased their education by translating the great Latin texts into English. Additionally, he has the honor of being the first king in English history to write a book, preceding King James by eight centuries. Thus, he is known as the "education king." 

More significantly, for the first time, English law would be written and would establish the tradition of England being a land 'ruled by laws' rather than by the whims of powerful men. Within these laws we find the genesis the principles of due process, trial by jury, and respect for the individual; no matter how lowly. His laws protected the commoner from arbitrary and excessive punishment. Even slaves were protected by his laws. There were limits on the number of hours they could be forced to work and were granted 37 work-free holidays per year. Furthermore, the slaves were allowed to work on their own behalf and retain all proceeds from their endeavors. Through the church, Alfred created a system that fed the poor and provided them with medical care. 

For the 9th century, Alfred was a very enlightened king who was loved by his people and for this reason he is the only king in English history to be bestowed the moniker "the Great." Alfred the Great, the father of England and education king.

So why would the history professors be opposed to a memorial to this great proponent of education? 

The truth is that the opposition to Alfred had more to do with what he symbolizes rather than actual history. Linda Mitchell, who specializes in Medieval history, was one of the protesting professors. As she explained in a New York Times interview, Alfred "is not a good logo to promote a modern university because virtually any historical figure who had any social or political influence is undoubtedly going to be a D.W.E.M. -- dead white European male," she said, "it would be foolish to choose a symbol so exclusive and effective in emphasizing the straight white male power structure of history." 

For Alfred, being a DWEM (Dead White European Male) means that his great achievements are to be ignored because they do not fit into the ideologically-driven, anti-Western civilization, revisionist history that is currently being taught in schools.
Sadly, Alfred U is not the only place in academia where the truth is sacrificed to the ideology of leftism.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary