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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-lincoln-park-emancipation-memorial-freed-black-americans-paid

This statue was paid for by formerly enslaved people, but even Frederick Douglas was disappointed in the design. Since the statue is on federal land, perhaps it should go to the National Museum of African American History, and a new statue commissioned.

Before we discuss this, what about getting rid of that crazy statue of racist Mayor Barry.

Never will happen. DC double standards. We care about racism until we don't.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see strength, determination, and resolve in the black man’s face. I see him actively rising to embrace his freedom. Instead of looking to Lincoln as a savior, he’s looking (and oriented) in a completely different direction — likely looking at and preparing to enter his future as a free man.

I don’t find this statue offensive.

Lincoln wanted to send all of the African-Americans back to Africa (i.e., Liberia), so he had the same prejudices of most white politicians of his time. With that context, the statue is particularly offensive.

So, you want Lincoln canceled then, correct? Because the reasoning you offer above goes far beyond one statue.

If you think that enriching our understanding of historical figured over time is “cancelling” and should not be tolerated ... then I think you’re the person with a shaky understanding of how history works. If you’re so positive that reconsideration of Lincoln is wrong, write your own d*mn book!

And I think you have a shaky understanding of the preceding posts, champ. But that’s okay. Get the feelings out.

[Anonymous]

Just saw the most horrible video of the antifa gnats in DC throwing liquids on a reporter and chasing/bullying him. Associating with mob rule is not a good move by BLM. Mobs refresh themselves in the Star Wars bar of "allies" like Antifa. They're happy to come help smash things, but with their own extreme and peculiar agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just saw the most horrible video of the antifa gnats in DC throwing liquids on a reporter and chasing/bullying him. Associating with mob rule is not a good move by BLM. Mobs refresh themselves in the Star Wars bar of "allies" like Antifa. They're happy to come help smash things, but with their own extreme and peculiar agenda.

Da da, Boris.

[Anonymous]

As a black woman I just cannot feel good about removing one of the rare memorials paid for by those who were enslaved. They did not feel that the symbolism -- showing vulnerability that today elicits such deep discomfort -- reduced their dignity. If the imagery did not offend them, if they did not mind having their gratitude depicted artistically in this fashion, why must we? The fact that black people paid for it makes all the difference to me. I wonder sometimes if there is difficulty in dealing with the fact that we have needed the help of the privileged to effect social change. Lincoln expressed support for sending all blacks back to Africa if in so doing the Union could be saved. AND YET he was critical in the emancipation of the enslaved. The duality disturbs all of us but that is the nature of any complex person or thing or system of ideas like democracy. Let's add another plaque that provides extensive historical context and erect a statue of a black abolitionist nearby. There are other ways to expand and enrich the historical narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a black woman I just cannot feel good about removing one of the rare memorials paid for by those who were enslaved. They did not feel that the symbolism -- showing vulnerability that today elicits such deep discomfort -- reduced their dignity. If the imagery did not offend them, if they did not mind having their gratitude depicted artistically in this fashion, why must we? The fact that black people paid for it makes all the difference to me. I wonder sometimes if there is difficulty in dealing with the fact that we have needed the help of the privileged to effect social change. Lincoln expressed support for sending all blacks back to Africa if in so doing the Union could be saved. AND YET he was critical in the emancipation of the enslaved. The duality disturbs all of us but that is the nature of any complex person or thing or system of ideas like democracy. Let's add another plaque that provides extensive historical context and erect a statue of a black abolitionist nearby. There are other ways to expand and enrich the historical narrative.

I love you. Please run for office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a black woman I just cannot feel good about removing one of the rare memorials paid for by those who were enslaved. They did not feel that the symbolism -- showing vulnerability that today elicits such deep discomfort -- reduced their dignity. If the imagery did not offend them, if they did not mind having their gratitude depicted artistically in this fashion, why must we? The fact that black people paid for it makes all the difference to me. I wonder sometimes if there is difficulty in dealing with the fact that we have needed the help of the privileged to effect social change. Lincoln expressed support for sending all blacks back to Africa if in so doing the Union could be saved. AND YET he was critical in the emancipation of the enslaved. The duality disturbs all of us but that is the nature of any complex person or thing or system of ideas like democracy. Let's add another plaque that provides extensive historical context and erect a statue of a black abolitionist nearby. There are other ways to expand and enrich the historical narrative.

I love you. Please run for office.

No, Lincoln supported the back to Africa campaign before he was president and after the war. He absolutely did not believe in equal rights for black people at any point in his lifetime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a black woman I just cannot feel good about removing one of the rare memorials paid for by those who were enslaved. They did not feel that the symbolism -- showing vulnerability that today elicits such deep discomfort -- reduced their dignity. If the imagery did not offend them, if they did not mind having their gratitude depicted artistically in this fashion, why must we? The fact that black people paid for it makes all the difference to me. I wonder sometimes if there is difficulty in dealing with the fact that we have needed the help of the privileged to effect social change. Lincoln expressed support for sending all blacks back to Africa if in so doing the Union could be saved. AND YET he was critical in the emancipation of the enslaved. The duality disturbs all of us but that is the nature of any complex person or thing or system of ideas like democracy. Let's add another plaque that provides extensive historical context and erect a statue of a black abolitionist nearby. There are other ways to expand and enrich the historical narrative.

I love you. Please run for office.

No, Lincoln supported the back to Africa campaign before he was president and after the war. He absolutely did not believe in equal rights for black people at any point in his lifetime.

What, for the two days in which he was still alive after the war??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a black woman I just cannot feel good about removing one of the rare memorials paid for by those who were enslaved. They did not feel that the symbolism -- showing vulnerability that today elicits such deep discomfort -- reduced their dignity. If the imagery did not offend them, if they did not mind having their gratitude depicted artistically in this fashion, why must we? The fact that black people paid for it makes all the difference to me. I wonder sometimes if there is difficulty in dealing with the fact that we have needed the help of the privileged to effect social change. Lincoln expressed support for sending all blacks back to Africa if in so doing the Union could be saved. AND YET he was critical in the emancipation of the enslaved. The duality disturbs all of us but that is the nature of any complex person or thing or system of ideas like democracy. Let's add another plaque that provides extensive historical context and erect a statue of a black abolitionist nearby. There are other ways to expand and enrich the historical narrative.

Um, most of what you’ve said is rendered null by the fact that the freed slaves had no artistic input. Even Frederick Douglas didn’t like it at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a black woman I just cannot feel good about removing one of the rare memorials paid for by those who were enslaved. They did not feel that the symbolism -- showing vulnerability that today elicits such deep discomfort -- reduced their dignity. If the imagery did not offend them, if they did not mind having their gratitude depicted artistically in this fashion, why must we? The fact that black people paid for it makes all the difference to me. I wonder sometimes if there is difficulty in dealing with the fact that we have needed the help of the privileged to effect social change. Lincoln expressed support for sending all blacks back to Africa if in so doing the Union could be saved. AND YET he was critical in the emancipation of the enslaved. The duality disturbs all of us but that is the nature of any complex person or thing or system of ideas like democracy. Let's add another plaque that provides extensive historical context and erect a statue of a black abolitionist nearby. There are other ways to expand and enrich the historical narrative.

I love you. Please run for office.

No, Lincoln supported the back to Africa campaign before he was president and after the war. He absolutely did not believe in equal rights for black people at any point in his lifetime.

This is a perfect example of a willful, dogged deliberate misunderstanding of Lincoln.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a black woman I just cannot feel good about removing one of the rare memorials paid for by those who were enslaved. They did not feel that the symbolism -- showing vulnerability that today elicits such deep discomfort -- reduced their dignity. If the imagery did not offend them, if they did not mind having their gratitude depicted artistically in this fashion, why must we? The fact that black people paid for it makes all the difference to me. I wonder sometimes if there is difficulty in dealing with the fact that we have needed the help of the privileged to effect social change. Lincoln expressed support for sending all blacks back to Africa if in so doing the Union could be saved. AND YET he was critical in the emancipation of the enslaved. The duality disturbs all of us but that is the nature of any complex person or thing or system of ideas like democracy. Let's add another plaque that provides extensive historical context and erect a statue of a black abolitionist nearby. There are other ways to expand and enrich the historical narrative.

Um, most of what you’ve said is rendered null by the fact that the freed slaves had no artistic input. Even Frederick Douglas didn’t like it at the time.

Which is interesting, emblematic and instructive of the time. If the statue were gone, we would never be discussing that nuance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a black woman I just cannot feel good about removing one of the rare memorials paid for by those who were enslaved. They did not feel that the symbolism -- showing vulnerability that today elicits such deep discomfort -- reduced their dignity. If the imagery did not offend them, if they did not mind having their gratitude depicted artistically in this fashion, why must we? The fact that black people paid for it makes all the difference to me. I wonder sometimes if there is difficulty in dealing with the fact that we have needed the help of the privileged to effect social change. Lincoln expressed support for sending all blacks back to Africa if in so doing the Union could be saved. AND YET he was critical in the emancipation of the enslaved. The duality disturbs all of us but that is the nature of any complex person or thing or system of ideas like democracy. Let's add another plaque that provides extensive historical context and erect a statue of a black abolitionist nearby. There are other ways to expand and enrich the historical narrative.

I love you. Please run for office.

No, Lincoln supported the back to Africa campaign before he was president and after the war. He absolutely did not believe in equal rights for black people at any point in his lifetime.

This is a perfect example of a willful, dogged deliberate misunderstanding of Lincoln.

No, Lincoln was a closeted white man of his time who had the average racist views of his time for most white men. He was not radical. He was not a Quaker. He was not an early adopter of abolitionism. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t a good president for the time, particularly for white Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a black woman I just cannot feel good about removing one of the rare memorials paid for by those who were enslaved. They did not feel that the symbolism -- showing vulnerability that today elicits such deep discomfort -- reduced their dignity. If the imagery did not offend them, if they did not mind having their gratitude depicted artistically in this fashion, why must we? The fact that black people paid for it makes all the difference to me. I wonder sometimes if there is difficulty in dealing with the fact that we have needed the help of the privileged to effect social change. Lincoln expressed support for sending all blacks back to Africa if in so doing the Union could be saved. AND YET he was critical in the emancipation of the enslaved. The duality disturbs all of us but that is the nature of any complex person or thing or system of ideas like democracy. Let's add another plaque that provides extensive historical context and erect a statue of a black abolitionist nearby. There are other ways to expand and enrich the historical narrative.

I love you. Please run for office.

No, Lincoln supported the back to Africa campaign before he was president and after the war. He absolutely did not believe in equal rights for black people at any point in his lifetime.

This is a perfect example of a willful, dogged deliberate misunderstanding of Lincoln.

No, Lincoln was a closeted white man of his time who had the average racist views of his time for most white men. He was not radical. He was not a Quaker. He was not an early adopter of abolitionism. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t a good president for the time, particularly for white Americans.

We must apply the values and lessons of today to yesterday. Time and time again Lincoln fails the time-traveler litmus text, whereby a person living in 1860 demonstrates the norms and values of 2020!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a black woman I just cannot feel good about removing one of the rare memorials paid for by those who were enslaved. They did not feel that the symbolism -- showing vulnerability that today elicits such deep discomfort -- reduced their dignity. If the imagery did not offend them, if they did not mind having their gratitude depicted artistically in this fashion, why must we? The fact that black people paid for it makes all the difference to me. I wonder sometimes if there is difficulty in dealing with the fact that we have needed the help of the privileged to effect social change. Lincoln expressed support for sending all blacks back to Africa if in so doing the Union could be saved. AND YET he was critical in the emancipation of the enslaved. The duality disturbs all of us but that is the nature of any complex person or thing or system of ideas like democracy. Let's add another plaque that provides extensive historical context and erect a statue of a black abolitionist nearby. There are other ways to expand and enrich the historical narrative.

except the people who paid for it had no say in the design. white people designed it. and it was disliked by black people from the beginning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a black woman I just cannot feel good about removing one of the rare memorials paid for by those who were enslaved. They did not feel that the symbolism -- showing vulnerability that today elicits such deep discomfort -- reduced their dignity. If the imagery did not offend them, if they did not mind having their gratitude depicted artistically in this fashion, why must we? The fact that black people paid for it makes all the difference to me. I wonder sometimes if there is difficulty in dealing with the fact that we have needed the help of the privileged to effect social change. Lincoln expressed support for sending all blacks back to Africa if in so doing the Union could be saved. AND YET he was critical in the emancipation of the enslaved. The duality disturbs all of us but that is the nature of any complex person or thing or system of ideas like democracy. Let's add another plaque that provides extensive historical context and erect a statue of a black abolitionist nearby. There are other ways to expand and enrich the historical narrative.

Um, most of what you’ve said is rendered null by the fact that the freed slaves had no artistic input. Even Frederick Douglas didn’t like it at the time.

Which is interesting, emblematic and instructive of the time. If the statue were gone, we would never be discussing that nuance.

there’s a place where we put objects that are instructice and need to be understood with nuance. it’s called a museum.