Who’s Really Erasing What?

A Look at “Erasure Culture” on the Left and Right

The word erasure means the act or instance of erasing. It can be as simple as wiping chalk off a board or as complex as removing people, ideas, or histories from public memory. In today’s political climate, erasure has become a loaded term, often used to signal fear, frustration, or cultural loss. Over the past decade, conservatives have increasingly invoked “erasure culture” to criticize what they see as liberal overreach. From renaming schools to removing statues, they argue that the left is scrubbing away America’s traditions and values.

But the reality is more complicated than a one-sided accusation. Both the political left and right engage in erasure, though in very different ways, with different intentions, methods, and consequences. One side calls it cancel culture. The other calls it preservation. But in both cases, something is being altered, removed, or silenced.

On the left, erasure is often framed as a corrective act. Activists and advocates call for the removal of symbols that glorify racism, oppression, or exclusion. Confederate statues, colonial place names, and outdated curricula are seen not as proud markers of history but as painful reminders of injustice. In these efforts, the goal is to tell a more complete and truthful story. By expanding our understanding of the past to include those who were once ignored or silenced, this form of erasure attempts to bring marginalized histories into view. It is not about denying the past but about refusing to glorify its darkest chapters.

Critics, mostly on the right, argue that this approach is itself a form of erasure. They claim it threatens free speech, undermines national pride, and punishes those with traditional views. For them, tearing down monuments or revising textbooks feels like an attack on heritage. However, this argument often misses an acknowledgment that the original versions of these narratives have already excluded many people. The histories being protected were never neutral. They were selective from the start.

Meanwhile, the right practices its own kind of erasure, though it is rarely labeled as such. Laws banning the discussion of systemic racism or LGBTQ+ identities in schools, the removal of books from libraries, and the dismantling of diversity and inclusion efforts all serve to narrow the public conversation. These actions aim to restrict which stories can be told and which people can be seen. They do not erase the past by tearing down statues, but they erase the present by silencing voices.

This form of erasure is not corrective. It is protective. It seeks to defend a specific version of reality that is often more comfortable for those already in power. It removes complexity, discourages inquiry, and punishes those who question the status quo. It is a retreat into simplicity at the expense of truth.

The difference between these two approaches lies in their intent. The left uses erasure to expand the circle, to make space for new stories and to confront hard truths. The right uses erasure to defend familiar ground, even when that ground was built on exclusion. One form of erasure asks us to reckon with the past. The other asks us to look away.

In the end, both sides accuse each other of erasing something essential. One says we are losing our traditions. The other says we have not yet told the full story. But the real question is not just who is erasing what. It is who benefits from what is being erased. The louder the debate becomes, the more important it is to listen closely to what, and whom, we are being asked to forget.