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