Will someone explain to me the functional difference between the cultural cleansing advocated by the mayor of Memphis and that of the Khmer Rouge, the Taliban and ISIS?

Before the Khmer Rouge came to power, Buddhism was much more than a religion in Cambodia. The temple, or wat, was not only a religious place but in most areas of the country also served as the primary school and center of social and intellectual life. Pali schools flourished as early as the 13th Century. By official count, there were more than 4,000 temples and 66,000 monks--1% of the population--before the Khmer Rouge came to power. A government statement in April, 1989, noted that the Khmer Rouge had executed more than 25,000 monks, including the chief monk, Huot Tat, and destroyed 1,968 temples and monasteries. -- "Buddhism Rising Again From the Ashes of Cambodia," LA Times, 19 June 1990.

Temple destroyed by the Khmer Rouge, Beng Melea, Cambodia.

I noted this article in my piece below, Nuking their own legitimacy. But a friend called me up to say that this headline: "Memphis Mayor Wants to Dig Up Dead Confederate War General," reminded him instantly of the collectivist cultural assassins of the Khmer Rouge, the Taliban and the Islamic State.

Mindful that the Democrat Party is a collectivist party just like its foreign counterparts, I guess this is just what they do. Maybe someone could ask the Mayor of Memphis when he intends an ethnic cleansing of white folks from his city?

The Prophet Jirjis mosque in Mosul, Iraq, after the Islamic State got done with it.

LATER: Here is my letter to the editor of the Memphis Commercial Appeal:

Mindful of the Mayor's proposal of cultural cleansing by removing the Nathan Bedford Forrest statue as well as his remains, can someone tell me the functional difference between him and the collectivist cultural assassins of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria? I realize that he is a member of America's collectivist party, the Democrats, but this proposal seems a bit much even for them. Of course Nathan Bedford Forrest was a life-long Democrat, so I can see why the Mayor would like to engage in some Orwellian "down the memory hole" erasure of history.

If he wants to do something useful, why doesn't he put some city resources to bear on making Fort Pickering a first class interpretative historic site? The fort was home to the 55th and 59th United States Colored Troops who fought magnificently at Brice's Crossroads against the very man whose statue now offends him after all these years. Try building up the cultural base of your town Mr. Mayor, not deconstructing it.