Anonymous wrote:I wonder what world we are leaving for the kids and grandkids, once everything has been removed and all celebrations are controversial. I'm assuming AA's are not celebrating the 4th of July? Oh well.

I know, right? What will kids do without these weird artworks stuck in odd corners of random parks? I don't know how I'm going to explain to mine that our family won't be able to celebrate Albert Pike Day down in Judiciary Square this year.

Frankly I see her point. This monument does not depict the freed slave and black American as an equal citizen. It is demeaning. Lincoln Park should probably still have a Lincoln statue - just replace this one.

I wonder what world we are leaving for the kids and grandkids, once everything has been removed and all celebrations are controversial. I'm assuming AA's are not celebrating the 4th of July? Oh well.

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.

No, but I don't believe in deifying mere mortals. Lincoln had moments of greatness and weakness. He wasn't the great savior of African-Americans. He wasn't even an abolitionist for most of his political life. The statue is offensive, and can be removed.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

He doesn’t look like he’s groveling. If he were standing, one could say it would look like Lincoln was purchasing a slave at an auction.

Douglass in his speech about the statue refers to Lincoln as a “liberator” and freeing slaves from “bondage.” That’s what the statue is trying to convey. That was the intent. Context matters.

Yet Douglas hated the statue.

Where is his opinion quoted on the statue?

Because of the history of this particular statue, I think it has historical value and should be kept. Perhaps the NMAAHC could take it? With a proper display of contextualizing information, viewers could understand why the statute was built, the role of emancipated and free blacks in erecting it, why the design was what is was, and read Douglass's words when it was dedicated.

I think the statue is supposed to depict Lincoln telling the formerly enslaved man not to kneel, but to stand, but it's not clear to everyone, and even back then, this wasn't the first choice for a design.

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.

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.

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.

Here’s an interesting story about the statue: https://www.fords.org/blog/post/investigating-washington-d-c-s-emancipation-memorial/

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?

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

He doesn’t look like he’s groveling. If he were standing, one could say it would look like Lincoln was purchasing a slave at an auction.

Douglass in his speech about the statue refers to Lincoln as a “liberator” and freeing slaves from “bondage.” That’s what the statue is trying to convey. That was the intent. Context matters.

Yet Douglas hated the statue.

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?

Hey, I’m a direct descendant of abolitionists who helped run the Underground Railroad and I can guarantee you that lots of people were involved in the struggle against slavery. Lincoln didn’t “free” the slaves all by himself. This statue - which is in my neighborhood- misrepresents the fight against slavery by depicting it as if this was something the kind paternal father figure gave as a present to people who were enslaved.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Amen! POC are one gigantic homogenous monolith. The fact that some black people don't like the statue doesn't mean that all black people feel the same way.

Amen! The fact that some POC don’t find it offensive doesn’t mean that many more do find it highly offensive.

Anonymous wrote:Sad day, communists burned down books and other things like this

What a weird comment. First, no one is talking about burning books. Second, communists didn’t really tear down a lot of statues, although they did take down a couple churches. (There’s a funny story about one that ended up as an outdoor swimming pool which is not super useful in Moscow, but I digress.). You know who did take down a whole bunch of statues? Anti-communists in the 1990. They took down a ton of statues of Lenin, Marx, and the gang. Usually by violent force by large crowds of people upset by what the statues represented.

Even Lincoln looks a little disappointed in the statue.