House Democrats demand removal of Lincoln Emancipation Memorial in Washington DC

From Fox News:

House Democrats proposed legislation Wednesday to remove the Emancipation Memorial from Lincoln Park in Washington, D.C., which they said portrays a racially insensitive image of President Abraham Lincoln freeing an enslaved man.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., reintroduced legislation to remove the statue Wednesday – the first day of Black History Month. She first announced her plan to propose the bill in the House in 2020. The delegate noted that the statue was initially paid for by freed slaves, but said the design was not representative of their struggles.

"Although formerly enslaved Americans paid for this statue, the design and sculpting process was done without their input or participation, and it shows," Norton said in a statement announcing the legislation.

The call by a few Democrats in the US House of Representatives to have the Lincoln Emancipation Memorial removed on the grounds that the sculpture of Abraham Lincoln freeing an enslaved black man is racially insensitive is just plain ridiculous and laughable because no matter the way the sculpture was designed, it highlights Lincoln's role in paving the way for the end of slavery in the Deep South by announcing the Emancipation Proclamation. In other words, that document transformed the American Civil War into a war against slavery by having Union troops attack slave plantations in order to forestall the Confederacy's chances of winning the war.

a reply to: Potlatch

Washington owned slaves, so by their own rules, they must change Washington and everything attached to him to something benign, like a beagle, tri colored. that will be the new symbol of America, Cute, and a little annoying, otherwise just fine.

Why doe people give these #tards the air to continue their retarded tirades? The sooner we all tell them to fluck right off, the better we all will be. Perhaps enact a hunting season on woke. Strict bag limit of course.

I do hope they use the same artist that did the recent MLK statue to make a replacement.

a reply to: Potlatch

"Although formerly enslaved Americans paid for this statue, the design and sculpting process was done without their input or participation, and it shows," Norton said in a statement announcing the legislation"

That's the best part. Hilarious.

I would ask if any records exist of what the first hand witnesses of slavery thought of that stature but "mah feelz" knows better than they would.

a reply to: Potlatch

The dems are following in the footsteps of their tyrannical and authoritarian predecessors. Erase as much history as possible and re-write it to suit the narrative. Same old story throughout the millennia. Unfortunately, it still seems to work. SMH.

a reply to: Potlatch

This is nothing more than book burning.

I hope the evil left owns this forever.

Nit-Picky Micromanagers 👋

Pissing on the fire of the campfire they aren't in charge of any longer

originally posted by: xuenchen
Nit-Picky Micromanagers 👋

How much longer until the Democrats openly demand they get slavery back?

a reply to: Potlatch

The younger generation seems to have a problem with it and I feel their problem with this statue is emblematic of the overall problems with the younger generation. Here is an NPR article about the differing opinions:

Marcia Cole is a 71-year-old Black woman, a historical reenactor who came dressed as Charlotte Scott, a former enslaved person who gave money to build this memorial. Cole says she sees a liberated figure.

MARCIA COLE: He's not kneeling on two knees. He's rising. You look at his hands. His hands - he's pushing off. He's not shackled to anyone. He's holding the broken chains of slavery in his hands, signifying he's assuming his rightful place in freedom.

MAK: Thirty-three-year-old Candice Eddington works for a consulting firm in Washington and sees it very differently. To her, Lincoln was not a liberator.

CANDICE EDDINGTON: And it made me disgusted, quite frankly - the fact that you have a man kneeling at the feet of Lincoln. It symbolized servitude. It symbolized oppression. And it doesn't symbolize freedom or emancipation in any shape, form or fashion to me.

MAK: As the group of young protesters explained their objections, older demonstrators interrupted to make their case.

www.npr.org...

Nuance doesn't exist to these younger people. Everything is literal. He's kneeling at Lincoln's feet so he is oppressed according to the younger people. Even though his shackles are broken and he is reaching out toward freedom as Lincoln is depicted reading the emancipation declaration that freed him. They are not capable of seeing anything but literal ridiculous interpretations of everything. Everything in life is not this literal and when people think like this I feel it removes any capacity for critical or creative thinking.

originally posted by: JAY1980
I do hope they use the same artist that did the recent MLK statue to make a replacement.

Hmmm....How about the MLK Memorial, made entirely in China with Chinese stone and artist !!.

China of all places !!!

China, you know, that bastion of freedom, with expert knowledge of liberty and freeing slaves ( but not from chinese factories...) !!

Not a single Black person involved.


www.csmonitor.com...#:~:text=But%20for%20some%20Americans%2C%20the,is%20intended%20to%20embrace%2 0Dr.



Where's the outrage ?
Oh. Riiiiight.....

a reply to: network dude

Here is the press release from the congress women :

WASHINGTON, D.C. –Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) today kicked off her Black History Month bill series by reintroducing her bill that would remove the Emancipation Statue from Lincoln Park in the District of Columbia, a federal park, citing its problematic depiction of the fight to achieve emancipation. The statue would be placed in a museum with an explanation of its origin and meaning. This bill is the first in a series of statue and memorial removal bills Norton is introducing during Black History Month.

"Although formerly enslaved Americans paid for this statue, the design and sculpting process was done without their input or participation in any way, and it shows," Norton said. "The statue fails to note how enslaved African Americans pressed for their own emancipation. Understandably, they were only recently liberated from slavery and were grateful for any recognition of their freedom. However, in his keynote address at the unveiling of the statue, Frederick Douglass pointedly did not praise the statue, and, indeed, in private remarks, went as far as to say, "it showed the negro on his knee when a more manly attitude would have been indicative of freedom.

I think we should take notice that fredrick douglas wasn't too happy with it either. And if black leaders want to change it, I think we should take their suggestion into consideration.

a reply to: Antimony

I think there can be multiple interpretations and take note that it's not just the younger generations. People of the past, like Frederick Douglas didn't like it either.

Although, Frederick has much bigger issues than a statue at the time.

If it's controversial, why not just put it in a museum and put something everyone can agree on. It solves the issue and we can all move on.

originally posted by: Turquosie
a reply to: Antimony

I think there can be multiple interpretations and take note that it's not just the younger generations. People of the past, like Frederick Douglas didn't like it either.

Although, Frederick has much bigger issues than a statue at the time.

If it's controversial, why not just put it in a museum and put something everyone can agree on. It solves the issue and we can all move on.

Where does it stop? This is beyond ridiculous, there are so many other problems in the world, that if as much energy was put into might actually make a difference.

a reply to: ATruGod

Agreed. There are more pressing matters. I see no issue with the change but perhaps that money would be better spent towards a struggeling black community.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Potlatch

Washington owned slaves, so by their own rules, they must change Washington and everything attached to him to something benign, like a beagle, tri colored. that will be the new symbol of America, Cute, and a little annoying, otherwise just fine.

Why doe people give these #tards the air to continue their retarded tirades? The sooner we all tell them to fluck right off, the better we all will be. Perhaps enact a hunting season on woke. Strict bag limit of course.

It's common knowledge that Washington, Jefferson, and Jackson owned slaves, but so did Zachary Taylor, yet no statues of Taylor were ever taken down just because he was a slave owner.