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.

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.

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?

He could've been standing, for one thing. Currently it looks like he's groveling at the feet of Lincoln.

Anonymous wrote:I've lived here my whole life and never paid any attention to that statue. I bet most people aware of its existence couldn't even be able to recall any details about it.

All this fuss about statues is too much. EHN, there's far more important things you could do to help uplift communities of color.

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?

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?

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?

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow, that angle is something else.

This has been discussed on my DC neighborhood listserv. Seems many would support taking it down.

It depicts an AA man in a demeaning position. If the AA community would like it to go, I support that.

PP here. Here's a news clip in which a couple of my neighbors were interviewed about why they don't like the statue.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/residents-call-for-changes-to-emancipation-memorial-in-lincoln-park/2335539/

However, AAs aren't a monolith. There are at least a few who support the statue remaining in place because freed slaves funded it.

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

Anonymous wrote:Lincoln was almost certainly our greatest president and should be remembered as such, but that doesn't mean every statue of him is inoffensive. It's artistically notable enough that I think a place in the NMAAHC would be really appropriate.

It's worth reading Frederick Douglas's speech at the unveiling of the statue, which is a really interesting reflection on Lincoln's legacy: https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/4402

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow, that angle is something else.

This has been discussed on my DC neighborhood listserv. Seems many would support taking it down.

It depicts an AA man in a demeaning position. If the AA community would like it to go, I support that.