I say this a lot, I know, but just imagine if a [black] conservative group called for "scrubbing" certain black liberals "from [black] history" ...
TheRoot.com, a blog owned by the Washington Post, seems to have no qualms about doing so, as evidenced in its list of 21 "Black Folks We'd Like To Remove From Black History". Among the names are Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele.
Also included on the list: murderous Ugandan military dictator Idi Amin, the notorious "DC Sniper" John Allen Muhammad, Zimbabwean kleptocrat Robert Mugabe and the ruthless father-and-son Haitian dictators "Papa Doc" and "Baby Doc" Duvalier. (Source.)
In an age where myriad black [liberals] get offended at the merest perception of a stereotype, how is it that they'd advocate a set black mindset? In other words, if it's negatively stereotypical to run an ad for collard greens and corn bread during Black History Month, why is it not similarly negatively stereotypical to desire an excision of black conservatives from black history ... merely because they do not subscribe to the same political philosophy as the current majority of African-Americans?
"All blacks have rhythm" = bad stereotype.
"All blacks are liberal Democrats" = good stereotype.
Perhaps the best current comment on the ridiculous Root article has been made by "ant." He writes:
The column is based on a stupid premise to begin with. No one should be blotted from history whether they are Judges or ruthless dictators. Ignoring history is for the Ministry of Truth.
Re-education camps, kangaroo PC courts, and revisionist history -- isn't that what the Modern Left is all about, after all? Would that the Left could forget about men like Thomas and Steele ...
Semi-related: CNBC's Donny Douche calls Florida senatorial candidate Marco Rubio a "coconut."