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: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!

well ... in reverse, I doubt any leader today would be able to end slavery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

well ... in reverse, I doubt any leader today would be able to end slavery.

Actually, I agree.... these were all remarkable humans at remarkable moments. Where have our statespeople gone? And the versatility--so many were so much more in their lives than 'simply' poiticians.

[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.

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.

Or memorials can be museums. Do you need walls enclosing it to read/understand a plaque?

[Anonymous]

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.

Ahem...who cares about what that fine lady says?

[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.

It's interesting to see this left wing talking points trying to delegitimize and even dehmanize Lincoln. I'm not quite sure why. The man did end American slavery. His election started the Civil War because he ran on a platform of refusing to allow slavery spread into new states. He has a long and documented history of of always hating slavery. He frankly accepted white Americans didn't treat black Americans well and it was a problem. His views towards African Americans also greatly evolved in his lifetime, especially during the war years and greater exposure to men like Frederick Douglass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's interesting to see this left wing talking points trying to delegitimize and even dehmanize Lincoln. I'm not quite sure why. The man did end American slavery. His election started the Civil War because he ran on a platform of refusing to allow slavery spread into new states. He has a long and documented history of of always hating slavery. He frankly accepted white Americans didn't treat black Americans well and it was a problem. His views towards African Americans also greatly evolved in his lifetime, especially during the war years and greater exposure to men like Frederick Douglass.

There is a rigidity to extremist thinking--in this case left wing extremism-- that is chilling.

[Anonymous]

“Does that man look free? He does not look free,” Lee says. “A free man should be standing eye to eye. And if you’re the person that granted me my freedom, I should be happy. He still looks subservient … bowed down to someone who has positioned himself to have a lot of authority.”

https://dcist.com/story/20/07/02/dc-emancipation-memorial-lincoln-public-debate-black-history/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Does that man look free? He does not look free,” Lee says. “A free man should be standing eye to eye. And if you’re the person that granted me my freedom, I should be happy. He still looks subservient … bowed down to someone who has positioned himself to have a lot of authority.”

https://dcist.com/story/20/07/02/dc-emancipation-memorial-lincoln-public-debate-black-history/

Why not erect another statue as a counternarrative. So many ways to be creative and educational.

[Anonymous]

Boston, which has a copy of the statue, will be removing it. Their arts commission voted unanimously— concluding that it was time for the statue to go, following generations of requests for the removal of the statue. Yay Boston!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boston, which has a copy of the statue, will be removing it. Their arts commission voted unanimously— concluding that it was time for the statue to go, following generations of requests for the removal of the statue. Yay Boston!

Yay! Its so refreshing to see this done in a law abiding manner

[Anonymous]

It needs to be removed. Maybe replaced with something else. But not this insulting ish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Does that man look free? He does not look free,” Lee says. “A free man should be standing eye to eye. And if you’re the person that granted me my freedom, I should be happy. He still looks subservient … bowed down to someone who has positioned himself to have a lot of authority.”

https://dcist.com/story/20/07/02/dc-emancipation-memorial-lincoln-public-debate-black-history/

Why not erect another statue as a counternarrative. So many ways to be creative and educational.

Just a horrible idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boston, which has a copy of the statue, will be removing it. Their arts commission voted unanimously— concluding that it was time for the statue to go, following generations of requests for the removal of the statue. Yay Boston!

Were there really generations of request for the removal? Other than the usual cranks?

The DC statue never generated noteworthy controversy until this year. I suppose I see why some people are offended by it, but they're offended by it in 2020, not 1865.

[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.

DP
Also black and I agree with the this OP’s sentiments. Include more context and erect more statues. Continue the conversation, and don’t promote vandalism.

By the way, the statue of Martin Luther King, contracted out to the Chinese, looks nothing like him. No artistic input from people that should’ve been consulted. Remember all the criticism when that was unveiled?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It needs to be removed. Maybe replaced with something else. But not this insulting ish.

Have you ever been to the holocaust? There is power in remembering some of the atrocities. Not honoring it but remembering it and honoring the sacrifice. I will never forget walking by the empty shoes.

Did you know George Washington has one tooth in his presidency and it is rumored he made fake teeth by pulling them from his slaves? These things shouldn’t be forgotten. Don’t rip all the pain down. It becomes too distant to learn and build and protect from.