Eleanor Holmes Norton announces she wants Lincoln "Emancipation" statue removed from Lincoln Park

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one where Lincoln is petting a black man's head and the black man looks like a dog at his feet.

The man doesn’t look like a dog and Lincoln isn’t touching his head.

The statue is symbolic of Lincoln saying go free to the slaves, and in 1876 how else would have it been depicted?

So you think that because only subservient poses were allowed for black men in the 1870s, the image should be kept today? What about demeaning images of Jews from the late 1800s? Also cool?

No. Are you really that dense? The man is in a subservient pose b/c he represents a slave. I can’t speak for the designer, but the purpose was trying to illustrate Lincoln freeing the slaves and not be demeaning. It was 1876–what else should it have looked like?

It could have looked like a newly freed slave standing next to Lincoln not on his hands and knees? Do you really have no imagination?

Here's an 1866 painting of Lincoln as emancipator (http://abrahamlincolnassociation.org/the-first-slave-freed-by-abraham-lincoln-a-biographical-sketch-of-nance-legins-cox-cromwell-costley-circa-1813-1873/). Notice how she doesn't look at all like a dog? It's definitely possible.

Flower, the picture to which you linked is from a postcard painted in the early 1900s—about the same time as the Lincoln emancipation sculptor died.
https://taaffshowcase.org/lincoln-and-the-contrabands/

Archer Alexander doesn’t look like a dog to me.

Unless you think they discovered that black people could stand between 1876 and 1905, your point is still moronic. There are plenty of paintings of freed slaves where they're not on all fours. Defend the statue if you like it, but "what else was he supposed to do?" is an embarrassing defense.

[Anonymous]

The man isn’t kneeling like a dog. His chains are broken and his fist is clenched. He in the process of getting up because he is free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one where Lincoln is petting a black man's head and the black man looks like a dog at his feet.

The man doesn’t look like a dog and Lincoln isn’t touching his head.

The statue is symbolic of Lincoln saying go free to the slaves, and in 1876 how else would have it been depicted?

Funny how you and I can look at the same statue and see different things. Art is funny that way.

When one poster is a bad-faith conservative troll, you might hear anything!

(Don’t assume good faith from a conservative like this poster.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The man isn’t kneeling like a dog. His chains are broken and his fist is clenched. He in the process of getting up because he is free.

Also Charles Koch deserves huge tax giveaways at the expense of the middle class because <some argument made by a Cato employee>.

Just move to your endgame argument and skip the statue stuff. You know you want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The man isn’t kneeling like a dog. His chains are broken and his fist is clenched. He in the process of getting up because he is free.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The man isn’t kneeling like a dog. His chains are broken and his fist is clenched. He in the process of getting up because he is free.

That's no doubt what the sculptor intended, but it's not how it's seen by a lot of actual black people. They see a black man in chains in a subservient pose. There are many more ways to depict emancipation and honor Lincoln. Certainly Lincoln did not see himself in that god-like, paternalistic manner anyway. But what really pushes me to the side of taking it down is that black people **at the time** did not like the sculpture; and the newly emancipated people who funded the statute did not get a say in the design.

[Anonymous]

A rejected design, also from 1876, would have included a number of other figures, including African American soldiers. I assume that they wouldn't have been kneeling.

[Anonymous]

This is how it should be done and I agree with Rep Norton. I do find this depiction of African Americans demeaning and somewhat offensive. Let’s discuss and I think replace (or remove) this statue.

I would also like to see Trump follow through for a change and jail some of those Lafayette Park punks for 5 to 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The man isn’t kneeling like a dog. His chains are broken and his fist is clenched. He in the process of getting up because he is free.

Also Charles Koch deserves huge tax giveaways at the expense of the middle class because <some argument made by a Cato employee>.

Just move to your endgame argument and skip the statue stuff. You know you want to.

Huh?

[Anonymous]

I can see why it could be offensive.

Perhaps, to honor the freedmen who paid for the statue, have the statue melted down and recast, of the same two figures, but in more appropriate poses.

[Anonymous]

Replace it with a statue of the Obamas!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The man isn’t kneeling like a dog. His chains are broken and his fist is clenched. He in the process of getting up because he is free.

That's no doubt what the sculptor intended, but it's not how it's seen by a lot of actual black people. They see a black man in chains in a subservient pose. There are many more ways to depict emancipation and honor Lincoln. Certainly Lincoln did not see himself in that god-like, paternalistic manner anyway. But what really pushes me to the side of taking it down is that black people **at the time** did not like the sculpture; and the newly emancipated people who funded the statute did not get a say in the design.

Freed slaves did get a say in the design. A freed slaved posed for the statue. The alternative design was rejected b/c it was too expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Replace it with a statue of the Obamas!

Sure. Just add George Soros.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem with discussion of any sculpture that hasn't aged well.
I don't support mob actions to tear them down.

And you consider the proposal to move it to a museum the same as a mob tearing it down?

[Anonymous]

Lincoln wanted to free the slaves and send them to Africa (I.e., to Liberia). So, he reflected the prejudices of his time. Let’s just take all the statues down and pay artists to create new public works of art. We could sell off the statutes to cure the budget shortfall.